Observatorio IA - arXiv

Large language models like ChatGPT efficiently provide users with information about various topics, presenting a potential substitute for searching the web and asking people for help online. But since users interact privately with the model, these models may drastically reduce the amount of publicly available human-generated data and knowledge resources. This substitution can present a significant problem in securing training data for future models. In this work, we investigate how the release of ChatGPT changed human-generated open data on the web by analyzing the activity on Stack Overflow, the leading online Q\&A platform for computer programming. We find that relative to its Russian and Chinese counterparts, where access to ChatGPT is limited, and to similar forums for mathematics, where ChatGPT is less capable, activity on Stack Overflow significantly decreased. A difference-in-differences model estimates a 16\% decrease in weekly posts on Stack Overflow. This effect increases in magnitude over time, and is larger for posts related to the most widely used programming languages. Posts made after ChatGPT get similar voting scores than before, suggesting that ChatGPT is not merely displacing duplicate or low-quality content. These results suggest that more users are adopting large language models to answer questions and they are better substitutes for Stack Overflow for languages for which they have more training data. Using models like ChatGPT may be more efficient for solving certain programming problems, but its widespread adoption and the resulting shift away from public exchange on the web will limit the open data people and models can learn from in the future.
Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for artificial intelligence generated text and evaluates them based on accuracy and error type analysis. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. The research covers 12 publicly available tools and two commercial systems (Turnitin and PlagiarismCheck) that are widely used in the academic setting. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. First, it summarises up-to-date similar scientific and non-scientific efforts in the field. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings.
In order to train children's ability to ask curiosity-driven questions, previous research has explored designing specific exercises relying on providing semantic and linguistic cues to help formulate such questions. But despite showing pedagogical efficiency, this method is still limited as it relies on generating the said cues by hand, which can be a very costly process. In this context, we propose to leverage advances in the natural language processing field (NLP) and investigate the efficiency of using a large language model (LLM) for automating the production of the pedagogical content of a curious question-asking (QA) training. We study generating the said content using the "prompt-based" method that consists of explaining the task to the LLM in natural text. We evaluate the output using human experts annotations and comparisons with hand-generated content. Results suggested indeed the relevance and usefulness of this content. We also conduct a field study in primary school (75 children aged 9-10), where we evaluate children's QA performance when having this training. We compare 3 types of content : 1) hand-generated content that proposes "closed" cues leading to predefined questions; 2) GPT-3-generated content that proposes the same type of cues; 3) GPT-3-generated content that proposes "open" cues leading to several possible questions. We see a similar QA performance between the two "closed" trainings (showing the scalability of the approach using GPT-3), and a better one for participants with the "open" training. These results suggest the efficiency of using LLMs to support children in generating more curious questions, using a natural language prompting approach that affords usability by teachers and other users not specialists of AI techniques. Furthermore, results also show that open-ended content may be more suitable for training curious question-asking skills.
The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse.