Consequently, detecting whether a text is generated by LLMs has become increasingly important.

The rise in malicious usage of large language models, such as fake content creation and academic plagiarism, has motivated the development of approaches that identify AI-generated text, including those based on watermarking or outlier detection. However, the robustness of these detection algorithms to paraphrases of AI-generated text remains unclear. To stress test these detectors, we build a 11B parameter paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Paraphrasing text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) with DIPPER successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking, GPTZero, DetectGPT, and OpenAI's text classifier. For example, DIPPER drops detection accuracy of DetectGPT from 70.3% to 4.6% (at a constant false positive rate of 1%), without appreciably modifying the input semantics.To increase the robustness of AI-generated text detection to paraphrase attacks, we introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider. Given a candidate text, our algorithm searches a database of sequences previously generated by the API, looking for sequences that match the candidate text within a certain threshold. We empirically verify our defense using a database of 15M generations from a fine-tuned T5-XXL model and find that it can detect 80% to 97% of paraphrased generations across different settings while only classifying 1% of human-written sequences as AI-generated.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to generate texts that pose risks of misuse, such as plagiarism, planting fake reviews on e-commerce platforms, or creating inflammatory false tweets. Consequently, detecting whether a text is generated by LLMs has become increasingly important. Existing high-quality detection methods usually require access to the interior of the model to extract the intrinsic characteristics. However, since we do not have access to the interior of the black-box model, we must resort to surrogate models, which impacts detection quality. In order to achieve high-quality detection of black-box models, we would like to extract deep intrinsic characteristics of the black-box model generated texts.

Consequently, detecting whether a text is generated by LLMs has become increasingly important.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to generate texts that pose risks of misuse, such as plagiarism, planting fake reviews on e-commerce platforms, or creating inflammatory false tweets. Consequently, detecting whether a text is generated by LLMs has become increasingly important. Existing high-quality detection methods usually require access to the interior of the model to extract the intrinsic characteristics. However, since we do not have access to the interior of the black-box model, we must resort to surrogate models, which impacts detection quality. In order to achieve high-quality detection of black-box models, we would like to extract deep intrinsic characteristics of the black-box model generated texts.

In this paper, we study how well humans can detect text generated by commercial LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude, o1). We hire annotators to read 300 non-fiction English articles, label them as either human-written or AI-generated, and provide paragraph-length explanations for their decisions. Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such "expert" annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. Qualitative analysis of the experts' free-form explanations shows that while they rely heavily on specific lexical clues ('AI vocabulary'), they also pick up on more complex phenomena within the text (e.g., formality, originality, clarity) that are challenging to assess for automatic detectors. We release our annotated dataset and code to spur future research into both human and automated detection of AI-generated text.

The rise in malicious usage of large language models, such as fake content creation and academic plagiarism, has motivated the development of approaches that identify AI-generated text, including those based on watermarking or outlier detection. However, the robustness of these detection algorithms to paraphrases of AI-generated text remains unclear. To stress test these detectors, we build a 11B parameter paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Paraphrasing text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) with DIPPER successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking, GPTZero, DetectGPT, and OpenAI's text classifier. For example, DIPPER drops detection accuracy of DetectGPT from 70.3% to 4.6% (at a constant false positive rate of 1%), without appreciably modifying the input semantics.To increase the robustness of AI-generated text detection to paraphrase attacks, we introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider.

As large language models (LLMs) rapidly advance and integrate into daily life, the privacy risks they pose are attracting increasing attention. We focus on a specific privacy risk where LLMs may help identify the authorship of anonymous texts, which challenges the effectiveness of anonymity in real-world systems such as anonymous peer review systems. To investigate these risks, we present AIDBench, a new benchmark that incorporates several author identification datasets, including emails, blogs, reviews, articles, and research papers. AIDBench utilizes two evaluation methods: one-to-one authorship identification, which determines whether two texts are from the same author; and one-to-many authorship identification, which, given a query text and a list of candidate texts, identifies the candidate most likely written by the same author as the query text. We also introduce a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)-based method to enhance the large-scale authorship identification capabilities of LLMs, particularly when input lengths exceed the models' context windows, thereby establishing a new baseline for authorship identification using LLMs. Our experiments with AIDBench demonstrate that LLMs can correctly guess authorship at rates well above random chance, revealing new privacy risks posed by these powerful models. The source code and data will be made publicly available after acceptance.