HackerPapers

arXiv:2412.05139cs.CL

A Practical Examination of AI-Generated Text Detectors for Large Language Models

Brian Tufts, Xuandong Zhao, Lei Li

Early discovery. Linked by one identifiable commenter. This paper is outside the main ranking; a mention is not an endorsement.

Abstract

The proliferation of large language models has raised growing concerns about their misuse, particularly in cases where AI-generated text is falsely attributed to human authors. Machine-generated content detectors claim to effectively identify such text under various conditions and from any language model. This paper critically evaluates these claims by assessing several popular detectors (RADAR, Wild, T5Sentinel, Fast-DetectGPT, PHD, LogRank, Binoculars) on a range of domains, datasets, and models that these detectors have not previously encountered. We employ various prompting strategies to simulate practical adversarial attacks, demonstrating that even moderate efforts can significantly evade detection. We emphasize the importance of the true positive rate at a specific false positive rate (TPR@FPR) metric and demonstrate that these detectors perform poorly in certain settings, with TPR@.01 as low as 0%. Our findings suggest that both trained and zero-shot detectors struggle to maintain high sensitivity while achieving a reasonable true positive rate.

arXiv comments
9 pages
Journal reference
DOI
Subjects
cs.CLComputation and Language cs.AIArtificial Intelligence

On Hacker News

Linked by 1 identifiable commenter in 1 comment across 1 thread, from Jul 2025 to Jul 2025.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments1 thread

    • TFA should be compared with Tufts (2025) A Practical Examination of AI-Generated Text Detectors for Large Language Models.[0] Tufts found that automated detection is very unreliable, while Russell found the opposite for human evaluators. The explanation for the difference is…

      wrpView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.