测试人工智能生成文本的检测工具

IF 3.8 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Debora Weber-Wulff, Alla Anohina-Naumeca, Sonja Bjelobaba, Tomáš Foltýnek, Jean Guerrero-Dib, Olumide Popoola, Petr Šigut, Lorna Waddington
{"title":"测试人工智能生成文本的检测工具","authors":"Debora Weber-Wulff, Alla Anohina-Naumeca, Sonja Bjelobaba, Tomáš Foltýnek, Jean Guerrero-Dib, Olumide Popoola, Petr Šigut, Lorna Waddington","doi":"10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.","PeriodicalId":44838,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text\",\"authors\":\"Debora Weber-Wulff, Alla Anohina-Naumeca, Sonja Bjelobaba, Tomáš Foltýnek, Jean Guerrero-Dib, Olumide Popoola, Petr Šigut, Lorna Waddington\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal for Educational Integrity\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal for Educational Integrity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Educational Integrity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-023-00146-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生成式预训练转换器大型语言模型的最新进展强调了在学术环境中不公平地使用人工智能(AI)生成内容的潜在风险,并加大了寻找检测此类内容的解决方案的力度。本文研究了人工智能生成文本检测工具的一般功能,并根据准确性和错误类型分析对其进行了评估。具体来说,本研究试图回答以下研究问题:现有检测工具是否能可靠地区分人类撰写的文本和 ChatGPT 生成的文本,机器翻译和内容混淆技术是否会影响人工智能生成文本的检测。研究涵盖了 12 种公开可用的工具和两种商业系统(Turnitin 和 PlagiarismCheck),这些工具和系统在学术界被广泛使用。研究人员得出结论,现有的检测工具既不准确也不可靠,主要偏向于将输出结果归类为人类撰写的文本,而不是检测人工智能生成的文本。此外,内容混淆技术大大降低了工具的性能。这项研究做出了几项重大贡献。首先,它总结了该领域最新的类似科学和非科学工作。其次,它基于严谨的研究方法、原始文档集和广泛的工具覆盖范围,展示了迄今为止最全面的测试结果之一。第三,它讨论了在学术环境中对人工智能生成的文本使用检测工具的意义和缺点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text
Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.
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
International Journal for Educational Integrity
International Journal for Educational Integrity EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
26.10%
发文量
25
审稿时长
22 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信