>they correctly identified only 68% of the generated abstracts and 86% of the genuine abstracts.
I think you and I are basically in alignment... what this tells me is that 14% of real abstracts are so bad that other human beings call their BS. Meanwhile, this AI stuff is kinda working 32% of the time in generating legitimately interesting ideas.
So at that point - yeah, that sounds about right. The 32% is still so low that it shows AI is not anywhere near maturity, whereas 14% of human-generated is crap.
And, yeah - a short blurb like an abstract seems to be exactly the kind of text that ChatGPT is conditioned to do well generating. As others below note - once a human starts reading the rest, the alarm bells trigger.
I think you and I are basically in alignment... what this tells me is that 14% of real abstracts are so bad that other human beings call their BS. Meanwhile, this AI stuff is kinda working 32% of the time in generating legitimately interesting ideas.
So at that point - yeah, that sounds about right. The 32% is still so low that it shows AI is not anywhere near maturity, whereas 14% of human-generated is crap.
And, yeah - a short blurb like an abstract seems to be exactly the kind of text that ChatGPT is conditioned to do well generating. As others below note - once a human starts reading the rest, the alarm bells trigger.