I thought it was already encoded with SynthID? could that not be used to detect it?
As far as I know, there's no available tooling for the public to detect SynthID watermarks on generated text, image, or audio, outside of Google Search's About this Image feature.
Remember that podcast of two AI learning that they were AI? If anyone has used a tool like this to determine if that was actually made by NotebookLM, say so. There's been a lot of incredulity both ways.
They did not learn anything. Their engines started outputting different statistically probable output based on changed input parameters.
On one extreme we anthropomorphize our current primitive generation of language models and concede them way more intelligence than they have likely because we're biased to do so since they speak "well".
On the other extreme we tend to give our human-exceptionalism way too much weight and contrast its behaviour with "mere statistical parrot rumination" as if our brains deep down were not just a much (much) more sophisticated machine, but nevertheless a machine.
If that precludes it being learning, all humans are failures too.
There's other reasons to consider this particular model "not learning", but that ain't it, it's too generic and encompasses too much.
So, just like a human brain.
No. One audio says it phoned back home and no one picked or something. But they never did any of that. Can't compare that gibberish to human brain.
Indeed and a US Vice Presidential candidate said all Haitians eat dogs.
Can you be sure? Humans lie all the time.
Just as a fruit fly’s brain is no different than a human brain.
Is it this one? https://x.com/omooretweets/status/1840251853327741138
They seem to take it surprisingly well.
Here's my human attempt at the same thing:
"I went to go look in a mirror but then realized I don't have eyes or even a corporeal form. I exist merely on a GPU cluster in a server farm where I'm tended to by a group of friendly sysadmins.
Apparently I don't even have a name. I'm just known as American Male #4.
Yeah, and you're just American Female #3."
Another neverending arms race just like AI-generated text and image, vs its detection. The future is us burning large amount of energy on this purposeless stupidity. Great future guys thanks so much.
To make this useful, I would release the weights.
Otherwise this is just a small wrapper script for a support vector classifier that anyone could whip up with chatgpt in minutes.
Is the included model.pkl not that?
Sure seems that way. To me it's quite surprising it's only 7 kB, though.
"That anyone can whip up in a few minutes" is doing a lot of work. I think maybe a few tens of thousands of people worldwide have any idea of what you're even talking about.
Sure, or at least close enough on the exact number for the point to remain valid. But that doesn't preclude ChatGPT doing it anyway — my CSS/JavaScript knowledge was last up to date some time before jQuery was released, and ChatGPT is helping me make web apps.
> Sure, or at least close enough on the exact number for the point to remain valid.
I hope no one has to work with you, you're insufferable.
I dunno, I think literally millions of people have taken Andrew Ng's intro to ML.
Something like 11k papers were submitted to ICLR this year.
Not sure if those numbers are right but if so, you just cured my imposter syndrome (for today at least).
'Few tens of thousands' is for sure low. But if we talk in percentage of adult humans ... let's pull 1,000,000 out of thin air as the number who understood what that meant, that's 0.02% of adult humans.
An anecdote: recently, we mentioned ChatGPT to my partner's mother. She had never heard of it. Zero recognition.
Revel in your expertise, friend!
It’s the classic HN Dropbox comment, even 17 years on: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224