This doesn‘t sound like AI. LLMs do not use dictionary definitions for translating a paper this way. It does look like some translation engine like Google Translate or worse, maybe with some text obfuscator trying to avoid plagiarism detection.
This doesn‘t sound like AI. LLMs do not use dictionary definitions for translating a paper this way. It does look like some translation engine like Google Translate or worse, maybe with some text obfuscator trying to avoid plagiarism detection.
Yes, this looks like something which predates AI by several decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_spinning
https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06751 found that a lot of the outputs were characteristic of an online tool called SpinBot. (The tool no longer seems to work the same way that it did at the time.)
LLMs are not the only form of AI.
Simple substitution of phrases doesn’t sound like any AI.
Autocorrect unleashed doesn't sound like any AI either but that doesn't stop anyone from calling it that
Google Translate uses an LLM, last I heard.
Only since 2023.
That sounds like Anthrophics watermark explanation though.
Anthropic’s watermark is just using a known collection of random seeds during output token generation. That’s it. The models always relied on some randomness, here the randomness is fixed and remembered for querying later.
> Anthropic’s watermark is just using a known collection of random seeds during output token generation. That’s it.
Wouldn't that mean that checking the watermark...
(1) Required knowing the prompt used to generate the text; and
(2) was just as expensive as generating the text?