... unless it's AI masquerading as eyeballs looking at ads.

Keep in mind this is for AI generated TEXT, not the images everyone is talking about in this thread.

Also they used an automated tool, all of which have very high error rates, because detecting AI text is a fundamentally impossible task

Probably on par with the junk human users are posting

this is awesome!

A friend of mine has made this with your described method:

PS: the laptop on the illustration in the article! Someone did not want pay for high end model and did not want to to take any extra time neither…

Well, maybe it is the taste of people still being there.. I mean, you have to be at least a little bit strange, if you are still on facebook…

*where you think they sourced from there, you have no proof other than seeing ghosts everywhere.

Not get me wrong, fact checking posts is important, but you have no evidence if it is AI, human brain fart or targeted disinformations ‍️

Hmm, "the junk human users are posting", or "the human junk users are posting"? We are talking about Facebook here, after all.

Have you ever successfully berated a stranger into doing what you wanted them to do?

AI does give itself away over "longer" posts, and if the tool makes about an equal number of false positives to false negatives then it should even itself out in the long run. (I'd have liked more than 9K "tests" for it to average out, but even so.) If they had the edit history for the post, which they didn't, then it's more obvious. AI will either copy-paste the whole thing in in one go, or will generate a word at a time at a fairly constant rate. Humans will stop and think, go back and edit things, all of that.

I was asked to do some job interviews recently; the tech test had such an "animated playback", and the difference between a human doing it legitimately and someone using AI to copy-paste the answer was surprisingly obvious. The tech test questions were nothing to do with the job role at hand and were causing us to select for the wrong candidates completely, but that's more a problem with our HR being blindly in love with AI and "technical solutions to human problems".

"Absolute certainty" is impossible, but balance of probabilities will do if you're just wanting an estimate like they have here.

I have no idea whether the probabilities are balanced. They claim 5% was AI even before chatgpt was released, which seems pretty off. No one was using LLMs before chatgpt went viral except for researchers.

No I mean they literally label the post as “Gemini said this”

You know what I meant, by no one I mean “a large majority of users.”

Engagement is engagement, sustainability be damned.

Considering that they do automated analysis, 8k posts does not seem like a lot. But still very interesting.

I think you give them too much credit. As long as it doesn’t actively hurt their numbers, like x, it’s just part of the budget.

Title says 40% of posts but the article says 40% of long-form posts yet doesn't in any way specify what counts as a long-form post. My understanding is that the vast majority of Facebook posts are about the lenght of a tweet so I doubt that the title is even remotely accurate.

Im pretty sure chatbots were a thing before AI. They certainly werent as smart but they did exists.

Very true.

But also so stupid because their user base is, what, a good fraction of the planet? How can they grow?

This kind of just looks like an add for that companies AI detection software NGL.

I see no problem if the poster gives the info, that the source is AI. This automatically devalues the content of the post/comment and should trigger the reaction that this information is to be taken with a grain of salt and it needs to factchecked in order to improve likelihood that that what was written is fact.

An AI output is most of the time a good indicator about what the truth is, and can give new talking points to a discussion. But it is of course not a “killer-argument”.