Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models

More complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from human texts.

“Now more complex AI-powered generation techniques produce texts indistinguishable from that of humans”

Language models can produce biased outputs, leak private data, generate misinformation, and be used maliciously.

“Language models can produce biased outputs (Dhamala et al., 2021; Liang et al., 2021; Manela et al., 2021; Caliskan et al., 2017; Kirk et al., 2021), leak private data (Carlini et al., 2021), generate misinformation (Solaiman et al., 2019; Buchanan et al., 2021), and be used maliciously”

OpenAI's classifier is able to detect 1.5 billion parameter GPT-2-generated text with approximately 95% accuracy.

“It also presents and evaluates different versions of classifiers aiming to detect synthetic text and claims 'Our classifier is able to detect 1.5 billion parameter GPT-2-generated text with approximately 95% accuracy' (Solaiman, Brundage, et al., 2019, p. 10).”

The rest of the zero-shot detectors also perform poorly after the attack.

“The rest of the zero-shot detectors (Solaiman et al., 2019; Gehrmann et al., 2019; Ippolito et al., 2019) also perform poorly after our attack.”

Some zero-shot detectors extract statistical features such as log-likelihood, log-rank, or entropy for AIGT detection.

“Some zero-shot detectors extract statistical features such as log-likelihood [12], log-rank [13], or entropy [14] for AIGT detection.”

Existing detectors lack robustness to input sequence length.

“Existing detectors also lack robustness to various factors, such as alternative decoding strategies [Ippolito et al., 2020], input sequence length [Solaiman et al., 2019], different prompts [Kumarage et al., 2023;Lu et al., 2023], and repetition penalties [Fishchuk and Braun, 2023].”

The task of detecting LLM-generated text is typically approached as a binary classification problem.

“Typically, this task is approached as a binary classification problem [Zellers et al., 2019;Solaiman et al., 2019;Jawahar et al., 2020b;Fagni et al., 2021;Mitchell et al., 2023].”

Feature-based methods from LLM-generated text detection, such as Log-likelihood, GLTR, and log-rank, are adapted to analyze and classify human-LLM co-authored texts versus those solely authored by humans or LLMs.

“To effectively analyze and classify human-LLM co-authored texts versus those solely authored by humans or LLMs, feature-based methods from the problem of LLM-generated text detection, such as Log-likelihood [Solaiman et al., 2019], GLTR [Gehrmann et al., 2019a], and log-rank [Mitchell et al., 2023], are adapted to this task.”

Tools by Solaiman et al. (2019) and Ippolito et al. (2020) showed an encouraging ability in detecting machine created text, but were not tested against the latest generation of LLMs.

“Solaiman et al. (2019) and Ippolito et al.(2020) also both present tools which showed an encouraging ability in detecting machine created text, although these tools were not tested against the latest generation of LLMs.”

Recursive paraphrasing attacks utilise automated, network-based paraphrasing tools to reduce the accuracy of detectors on watermarked texts.

“These include 'recursive paraphrasing attacks' , which utilise automated, network-based paraphrasing tools to reduce the accuracy of detectors on watermarked texts”

Spoofing attacks involve an adversarial human deliberately writing a passage falsely detected as AI-generated without having access to the inner workings of the detection methods.

“'spoofing attacks' in which an adversarial human deliberately writes a passage falsely detected as AI-generated without having access to the inner workings of the detection methods.”