用于检测人工智能生成的文字的软件的有效性:16个人工智能文本检测器的比较

Q2 Social Sciences
William H. Walters
{"title":"用于检测人工智能生成的文字的软件的有效性:16个人工智能文本检测器的比较","authors":"William H. Walters","doi":"10.1515/opis-2022-0158","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study evaluates the accuracy of 16 publicly available AI text detectors in discriminating between AI-generated and human-generated writing. The evaluated documents include 42 undergraduate essays generated by ChatGPT-3.5, 42 generated by ChatGPT-4, and 42 written by students in a first-year composition course without the use of AI. Each detector’s performance was assessed with regard to its overall accuracy, its accuracy with each type of document, its decisiveness (the relative number of uncertain responses), the number of false positives (human-generated papers designated as AI by the detector), and the number of false negatives (AI-generated papers designated as human ). Three detectors – Copyleaks, TurnItIn, and Originality.ai – have high accuracy with all three sets of documents. Although most of the other 13 detectors can distinguish between GPT-3.5 papers and human-generated papers with reasonably high accuracy, they are generally ineffective at distinguishing between GPT-4 papers and those written by undergraduate students. Overall, the detectors that require registration and payment are only slightly more accurate than the others.","PeriodicalId":32626,"journal":{"name":"Open Information Science","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors\",\"authors\":\"William H. Walters\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/opis-2022-0158\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This study evaluates the accuracy of 16 publicly available AI text detectors in discriminating between AI-generated and human-generated writing. The evaluated documents include 42 undergraduate essays generated by ChatGPT-3.5, 42 generated by ChatGPT-4, and 42 written by students in a first-year composition course without the use of AI. Each detector’s performance was assessed with regard to its overall accuracy, its accuracy with each type of document, its decisiveness (the relative number of uncertain responses), the number of false positives (human-generated papers designated as AI by the detector), and the number of false negatives (AI-generated papers designated as human ). Three detectors – Copyleaks, TurnItIn, and Originality.ai – have high accuracy with all three sets of documents. Although most of the other 13 detectors can distinguish between GPT-3.5 papers and human-generated papers with reasonably high accuracy, they are generally ineffective at distinguishing between GPT-4 papers and those written by undergraduate students. Overall, the detectors that require registration and payment are only slightly more accurate than the others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32626,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open Information Science\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open Information Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0158\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open Information Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2022-0158","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要:本研究评估了16种公开可用的人工智能文本检测器在区分人工智能生成的和人类生成的写作方面的准确性。被评估的文件包括42篇由ChatGPT-3.5生成的本科论文,42篇由ChatGPT-4生成的论文,以及42篇由没有使用人工智能的一年级作文课程的学生撰写的论文。对每个检测器的性能进行了评估,包括其总体准确性、对每种类型文件的准确性、其决定性(不确定响应的相对数量)、假阳性(由检测器指定为AI的人工生成的论文)的数量和假阴性(人工生成的论文指定为人类)的数量。三个检测器——Copyleaks, TurnItIn和Originality。Ai -对所有三套文件都有很高的准确性。虽然其他13个检测器中的大多数能够以相当高的准确率区分GPT-3.5论文和人工生成的论文,但它们在区分GPT-4论文和本科生论文方面通常是无效的。总的来说,需要注册和付费的探测器只比其他探测器精确一点点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors
Abstract This study evaluates the accuracy of 16 publicly available AI text detectors in discriminating between AI-generated and human-generated writing. The evaluated documents include 42 undergraduate essays generated by ChatGPT-3.5, 42 generated by ChatGPT-4, and 42 written by students in a first-year composition course without the use of AI. Each detector’s performance was assessed with regard to its overall accuracy, its accuracy with each type of document, its decisiveness (the relative number of uncertain responses), the number of false positives (human-generated papers designated as AI by the detector), and the number of false negatives (AI-generated papers designated as human ). Three detectors – Copyleaks, TurnItIn, and Originality.ai – have high accuracy with all three sets of documents. Although most of the other 13 detectors can distinguish between GPT-3.5 papers and human-generated papers with reasonably high accuracy, they are generally ineffective at distinguishing between GPT-4 papers and those written by undergraduate students. Overall, the detectors that require registration and payment are only slightly more accurate than the others.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Open Information Science
Open Information Science Social Sciences-Library and Information Sciences
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信