Believable because:

However, the system is highly specialized for scientific journal articles. When presented with real articles from university newspapers, it failed to recognize them as being written by humans.

So outside of its purview? Agree.

That’s how GANs are trained, and I haven’t seen anything about GPT4 (or DALL-E) being trained this way. It seems like current generative AI research is moving away from GANs.

If you call heads 100% of the time, you'll be 100% accurate on predicting heads in a coin toss.

It's in openai's best interests to say they're impossible. Completely regardless of the truth of if they are, that's the least trustworthy possible source to take into account when forming your understanding of this.

The best part of that if AI does a good job of summarizing, then anyone who is good at summarizing will look like AI. Like if AI news articles look like a human wrote it, then a human written news article will look like AI.

The original paper does have some figures about misclassified paragraphs of human-written text, which would seem to mean false positives. The numbers are higher than for misclassified paragraphs of AI-written text.

I do a lot of writing of various kinds, and I could not disagree more strongly. Writing is a part of thinking. Thoughts are fuzzy, interconnected, nebulous things, impossible to communicate in their entirety. When you write, the real labor is converting that murky thought-stuff into something precise. It's not uncommon in writing to have an idea all at once that takes many hours and thousands of words to communicate. How is an LLM supposed to help you with that? The LLM doesn't know what's in your head; using it is diluting your thought with statistically generated bullshit. If what you're trying to communicate can withstand being diluted like that without losing value, then whatever it is probably isn't meaningfully worth reading. If you use LLMs to help you write stuff, you are wasting everyone else's time.

Not using AI to help you write at this point is you wasting valuable time.

Bro WHAT are you smoking. In academia the process of writing the paper is just as important as the paper itself, and in creative writing why would you even bother being a writer if you just had an ai do it for you? Wasting valuable time? The act of writing it is inherently valuable.

It's not a big deal. People are just upset that kids have more tools/resources than they did. They would prefer kids wrote on paper with pencil and did not use calculators or any other tool that they would have available to them in the workforce.

Why should someone bother to read something if you couldn’t be bothered to write it in the first place? And how can they judge the quality of your writing if it’s not your writing?

I don’t think people are arguing against minor corrections, just wholesale plagiarism via AI. The big deal is wholesale plagiarism via AI. Your argument is as reasonable as it adjacent to the issue, which is to say completely.

The article is reporting on a published journal article. Surely that’s a good start?

https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/07/07/1075982/ai-text-detection-tools-are-really-easy-to-fool/amp/#amp_tf=De%20%251%24s&aoh=16993709470970&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

You sully the good name of Internet Pirates, sir or madam. I'll have you know that online pirates have a code of conduct and there is no value in promulgating an anti-ai or anti-anti-ai stance within the community which merely wishes information to be free (as in beer) and readily accessible in all forms and all places.

You are correct that the pirates will always win, but they(we) have no beef with ai as a content generation source. ;-)

if we're speaking to a real person or an actual human being

Ummm ...