This article examines the limits of AI-text detection as an inference from a completed object to an unobserved history using Turing's imitation game and statistical decision theory.
Abstract
What can a finished text reveal about the process that produced it? Drawing on Turing's imitation game and statistical decision theory, this article examines the limits of AI-text detection as an inference from a completed object to an unobserved history. For two known source distributions with equal prior probabilities, a standard identity gives the minimum average classification error as half their probability overlap. This overlap is one minus their total variation distance. Perfect detection therefore requires nonoverlapping distributions; useful discrimination does not. In practice, the problem is harder: human and machine writing form changing families of distributions, posterior probabilities depend on base rates, and ``AI-written''becomes ambiguous when people and software contribute to the same text. Turing's interrogator can ask another question; a detector restricted to finished prose cannot. Distinguishability, source attribution, authentication, and compliance are different inferential tasks. The paper's own documented human-AI provenance shows what a production history can reveal that a binary label cannot.
This article argues that “AI use” is too blunt a category for judging what happens when a student writes a humanities paper with a large language model. Taking the most intensive case, a paper built with AI from research to final review, it follows the changing relation between student, model, sources, and draft. In re...
Joshua Leonardo Lupowitz· Tiempo devorado· 0 citations
This work analyzes three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation.
Tacet is introduced, a language in which an analysis declares what it generated, states what it expects to find, and is refused any claim it cannot afford or cannot properly test, and is proved the metatheory machine-checked in Lean 4 with no admitted gaps.
When a language model finds a sentence unusually cheap to predict, it is tempting to conclude that the sentence was in its training data. Almost every published test of that inference has had to guess which sentences were in the training data, the members, and which were not. This paper removes the guessing. Two model...
Official statistics increasingly draws on non-traditional sources, such as social-media posts and other web-scraped text, analysed with AI language models for nowcasting, indicator production, and crisis monitoring. We show that such pipelines can manufacture false statistics with no misinformation actor involved: ordi...
N. Komendantova, Petr Pesov· Statistical Journal of the I...· 0 citations
The paper distinguishes genuine false positives from definitional boundary cases involving AI-assisted translation and polishing, engages the counter-argument that AI-polished prose may itself flatten linguistic diversity in academic English, and proposes a concrete process-oriented assessment model based on declared s...
Victor Angelier· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.