brainsteam.co.uk/brainsteam/content/annotations/2023/01/29/1674994106.md

68 lines
3.2 KiB
Markdown
Raw Normal View History

---
date: '2023-01-29T12:08:26'
hypothesis-meta:
created: '2023-01-29T12:08:26.920806+00:00'
document:
title:
- 2301.11305.pdf
flagged: false
group: __world__
hidden: false
id: ovUwTp_NEe2lC8uCWsE7eg
links:
html: https://hypothes.is/a/ovUwTp_NEe2lC8uCWsE7eg
incontext: https://hyp.is/ovUwTp_NEe2lC8uCWsE7eg/arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11305.pdf
json: https://hypothes.is/api/annotations/ovUwTp_NEe2lC8uCWsE7eg
permissions:
admin:
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
delete:
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
read:
- group:__world__
update:
- acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
tags:
- chatgpt
- detecting gpt
target:
- selector:
- end: 16098
start: 15348
type: TextPositionSelector
- exact: "Figure 3. The average drop in log probability (perturbation discrep-ancy)\
\ after rephrasing a passage is consistently higher for model-generated passages\
\ than for human-written passages. Each plotshows the distribution of the\
\ perturbation discrepancy d (x, p\u03B8 , q)for human-written news articles\
\ and machine-generated arti-cles; of equal word length from models GPT-2\
\ (1.5B), GPT-Neo-2.7B (Black et al., 2021), GPT-J (6B; Wang & Komatsuzaki\
\ (2021))and GPT-NeoX (20B; Black et al. (2022)). Human-written arti-cles\
\ are a sample of 500 XSum articles; machine-generated textis generated by\
\ prompting each model with the first 30 tokens ofeach XSum article, sampling\
\ from the raw conditional distribution.Discrepancies are estimated with 100\
\ T5-3B samples."
prefix: ancy)0.00.20.40.60.81.0Frequency
suffix: to machine-generated text detect
type: TextQuoteSelector
source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11305.pdf
text: quite striking here is the fact that more powerful/larger models are more
capable of generating unusual or "human-like" responses - looking at the overlap
in log likelihoods
updated: '2023-01-29T12:08:26.920806+00:00'
uri: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11305.pdf
user: acct:ravenscroftj@hypothes.is
user_info:
display_name: James Ravenscroft
in-reply-to: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.11305.pdf
tags:
- chatgpt
- detecting gpt
- hypothesis
type: annotation
url: /annotations/2023/01/29/1674994106
---
<blockquote>Figure 3. The average drop in log probability (perturbation discrep-ancy) after rephrasing a passage is consistently higher for model-generated passages than for human-written passages. Each plotshows the distribution of the perturbation discrepancy d (x, pθ , q)for human-written news articles and machine-generated arti-cles; of equal word length from models GPT-2 (1.5B), GPT-Neo-2.7B (Black et al., 2021), GPT-J (6B; Wang & Komatsuzaki (2021))and GPT-NeoX (20B; Black et al. (2022)). Human-written arti-cles are a sample of 500 XSum articles; machine-generated textis generated by prompting each model with the first 30 tokens ofeach XSum article, sampling from the raw conditional distribution.Discrepancies are estimated with 100 T5-3B samples.</blockquote>quite striking here is the fact that more powerful/larger models are more capable of generating unusual or "human-like" responses - looking at the overlap in log likelihoods