Slashdot Mirror
Fake Scientific Paper Detector
moon_monkey writes "Ever wondered whether a scientific paper was actually written by a robot? A new program developed by researchers at Indiana University promises to tell you one way or the other. It was actually developed in response to a prank by MIT researchers who generated a paper from random bits of text and got it accepted for a conference."
I am always wondering what those damn robots are up to!
but I wonder if it can tell if a paper was written by a million monkeys pounding on typewriters?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
so can a robot write a paper and then decide whether the paper was written by a robot (itself)?
Jesus said to his disciples: "If you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" - Luke 22:36
I hope the ACLU will ensure that discrimination against metal people will not be allowed to continue.
Has anybody fed Dvorak's latest column to this program? I've often wondered if he actually writes his columns, or just generate verbiage at random.
I've taken a long posting that I wrote on my blog and dropped it into the site. And I am Inauthentic. Now I understand the "Bladerunner Moment" comment in the article. I shall begin to surround myself with oddly colored polaroids and snapshots of theoretically implanted ancestors.
The nice thing is that we've finally settled the argument if machines can be made to drink beer and like it !
It seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the MIT program to use this new anti-robot robot to write papers that this anti-robot robot would not be able to detect. Ideally, this would be done with a learning algorithm (so that it could easily be extended to other anti-robot robot programs), but reverse-engineering the anti-robot robot (by humans) should also provide a solution.
Now that Indiana U has thrown down the gauntlet, I wouldn't be surprised if MIT responds. Hopefully it will result in an even better paper-writing robot. Ideally, it will lead to dissertation-writing robots. :)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I suspect that it is looking for the conventional thinking with conventional word structure. As such, it is NOT a good idea i
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
E-mail spambots have been making typos for years.
So I go there, and I start shoving it text from my hard drive. I try:
A) Text of an article (Philosophy) I (native English speaker) wrote in Italian: 98.5 Authentic.
B) Text of an article I wrote in English (History): 87.8
C) Text of an article (History) written in French by a native French speaker and translated into English: 93.2
D) Critical edition of a 14th-century Latin text (Theology): 97.7 Authentic.
E) Documentation to a Field Artillery Simulation: 95.3
F) A completely bogus narrative for a monastic order that doesn't exist, written in a style that mimics A)-C): 16.8% Inauthentic
So in this case, we have a human written document that has superficial meaning, but is written as a "fake scientific paper", and registering as such.
And yes, I did read the "purpose" of the page; I know it's not supposed to detect it.
And yet it does, decisively.
Read the paper listed in the menu of the website. The system essentially compresses the text with different window sizes, and then looks at the compression factors. In other words, it is only looking for repetition of strings. This is absurdly easy to fool, and the MIT generator could be easily fixed to pass this filter. For example, try entering a random text once (your post, for example). Note that it fails. Then append a few copies of the same text, and run that through. Your post, when run once, is too short. When run with two copies, it is rejected as 41.2%. When run with three, it passes with 93%. There is a window of repetition level required in order to pass - papers that do not repeat enough are classified as fake, as well as papers that repeat too much (try entering twenty copies of your post).
It should be relatively simple to make a random paper generator that always passes this test with a higher probability than human-written papers.
I, for one, peruse the blogosphere. On my Powerbook, wearing a black turtle neck and beret. Stroking my goatee thoughtfully. Sipping a latté in a café
If I could just find a way to recharge my PowerBook from your hatred, I could stop carrying this ugly power adaptor.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Some variant on this thing might be useful as a new article filter in Wikipedia. We need more automation over there to stem the flow of incoming dreck.
Sir I regret to inform you that you are a ruffian. I for one sit not in a place so vile and common as a 'café', examining the flawed writings of others, but in a temple constructed purely out of my supercilious transcendent superiority. I consume nothing so plebeian as 'The Internet' but rather a rasterized, marked-up and projected form of my own rigourous, peerless stream of consciousness (with blue aqueous scroll-bars). I have no need for facial hair or indeed any of your corporeal trappings and hence know not the joy of stroking a 'goatee'.
And now I must mod you as Troll, for surely you must know that the PowerBook, created on the Seventh day, is immaculate in it's design and conception and therefore the only possibility is that you seek to trifle with the emotions of our brethren, in crudely ascribing to Our Power Adapters the property of ugliness. If you were truly one of Us you would know that Steve created all in his own beautiful image.
btw you haven't got a couple of rubber feet for an ibook going spare have you mate?