Return to Answer

• The company was able to measure the rate of generated content on the site.
• The company was able to assume the expected number of false positive bans on the site based based on that rate

Both claims seem to be founded in the strategy you used to detect an AI generated post.

• The company was able to measure the rate of generated content on the site.
• The company was able to assume the expected number of false positive bans on the site based on that rate

Both claims seem to be founded in the strategy you used to detect/estimate the number of AI generated posts.

• The company was able to measure the rate of generated content on the site.
• The company was able to measure the rate of false positive bans on the site.

• The company was able to measure the rate of generated content on the site.
• The company was able to assume the expected number of false positive bans on the site based based on that rate

• ChatGPT detection tool have an unacceptable error rate. References:

  1- We ran an analysis and the ChatGPT detection tools have an alarmingly high rate of false positives
  2- Automated GPT detectors have unusable error rates on the platform - this very post

• Moderators own judgment has an unacceptable error rate too. References: multiple moderators pointing out that the private version of the policy that very conveniently for you the userbase will never see doesn't just forbid the use of tools. Since I would not be surprised to see retaliation actions against those individuals you won't get a list here.

• this idea, which based on your claims work better than any judgement the brains of more than an hundred mods managed to do, is coincidentally the first thing that came to mind when I was trying to imagine what the tells-by of a copy-and-paste post could be. I therefore assume that unless I am far smarter than you, the mods and everyone else that is also what most will have though of too, if anything else because this is exactly how the "are you an human" check usually work on sites: is someone is making some action too fast, they are probably not an human.
• mods have been telling you that quite often users posting generated content try to edit it before posting to remove the more blatant commonly seen recognizable signs of automated generation (for example the usual final line that often sound like "it is worth to notice that the above is just ... and not an accurate ....") and that obviously increases the time spent on a post.

For these two reasons alone, I am not really convinced that your date provide much more value than the mods own analysis and actually imho look like a pretty ingenue oversimplification that tries to proof causality ignoring a tons of other variables but it is still better than no data.

I therefore once again propose you an experiment: take one of the posts that based on your analysis should be a false positive, identify the mod that claimed it was a real positive, post an anonymized version of the post so that users can also see what the content looked like and then have both parties explain how they came to their conclusions.

I appreciate the shift in tone in this post. Sadly, I still have to consider this as a part of a bigger picture so I still find important to write the following.

The sentiment of this passage does not align at all with your actions. Once again you immediately jumped on the wagon to post what your own voluntary moderators apparently see as a direct disparaging of their work to a media press site. Those post were not removed or rectified after multiple request to do so and therefore you current word feel as empty as they can possibly be. You don't know of to start to rectify the misrepresentation you gave because "once on the internet, it is forever"? YOUR PROBLEM.

• ChatGPT detection tools have an unacceptable error rate. References:

  1- We ran an analysis and the ChatGPT detection tools have an alarmingly high rate of false positives
  2- Automated GPT detectors have unusable error rates on the platform - this very post

• Moderators' own judgment has an unacceptable error rate too. References: multiple moderators pointing out that the private version of the policy, that very conveniently for you the userbase will never see, doesn't just forbid the use of tools. Since I would not be surprised to see retaliation actions against those individuals you won't get a list here.

• This idea, which based on your claims work better than any judgement the brains of more than a hundred mods managed to do, is coincidentally the first thing that came to mind when I was trying to imagine what the tells-by of a copy-and-paste post could be. I therefore assume that unless I am far smarter than you, the mods and everyone else that is also what most will have though of too, if anything else because this is exactly how the "are you a human" check usually work on sites: if someone is making some action too fast, they are probably not an human.
• Mods have been telling you that quite often users posting generated content try to edit it before posting to remove the more blatant commonly seen recognizable signs of automated generation (for example the usual final line that often sound like "it is worth to notice that the above is just ... and not an accurate ....") and that obviously increases the time spent on a post.

For these two reasons alone, I am not really convinced that your data provides much more value than the mods' own analysis and actually imho looks like a pretty disingenuous oversimplification that tries to prove causality while ignoring a ton of other variables, but it is still better than no data.

I therefore once again propose you an experiment: take one of the posts that based on your analysis should be a false positive, identify the mod who claimed it was a real positive, post an anonymized version of the post so that users can also see what the content looked like, and then have both parties explain how they came to their conclusions.

I appreciate the shift in tone in this post. Sadly, I still have to consider this as a part of a bigger picture so I still find it important to write the following.

The sentiment of this passage does not align at all with your actions. Once again you immediately jumped on the wagon to post what your own voluntary moderators apparently see as a direct disparaging of their work to a media press site. Those posts were not removed or rectified after multiple requests to do so, and therefore you current words feel as empty as they can possibly be. You don't know how to start to rectify the misrepresentation you gave because "once on the internet, it is forever"? YOUR PROBLEM.