I can see far too many privacy issues with copy and pasting text into a website, and/or registering an account which will keep a history of the text checked.
Are there any services available that are noted for being private?
For context, I’m using uBlacklist to manually block website that use AI generated content.
The problem with those detectors is that they are barely better than guessing.
You’re most likely capable of outperforming such a detector by spotting semantic issues. Like when I tried to find how to configure saddle stool and the article said that my outstretched legs should reach pedals.
That may also be due to poor and cheap manual writing but you’ll not lose a lot by blocking those, I guess.
It does rate on a scale, so it’s not always 100% or 0% (sometimes it is). But it has been very reliable in the tests I’ve done. Apparently, false positives are something like 0.2%.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !privacyguides@lemmy.one
In the digital age, protecting your personal information might seem like an impossible task. We’re here to help.
This is a community for sharing news about privacy, posting information about cool privacy tools and services, and getting advice about your privacy journey.
You can subscribe to this community from any Kbin or Lemmy instance:
Check out our website at privacyguides.org before asking your questions here. We’ve tried answering the common questions and recommendations there!
Want to get involved? The website is open-source on GitHub, and your help would be appreciated!
This community is the “official” Privacy Guides community on Lemmy, which can be verified here. Other “Privacy Guides” communities on other Lemmy servers are not moderated by this team or associated with the website.
Moderation Rules:
We prefer posting about open-source software whenever possible.
No soliciting engagement: Don’t ask for upvotes, follows, etc.
Surveys, Fundraising, and Petitions must be pre-approved by the mod team.
Be civil, no violence, hate speech. Assume people here are posting in good faith.
Don’t repost topics which have already been covered here.
News posts must be related to privacy and security, and your post title must match the article headline exactly. Do not editorialize titles, you can post your opinions in the post body or a comment.
Memes/images/video posts that could be summarized as text explanations should not be posted. Infographics and conference talks from reputable sources are acceptable.
No help vampires: This is not a tech support subreddit, don’t abuse our community’s willingness to help. Questions related to privacy, security or privacy/security related software and their configurations are acceptable.
No misinformation: Extraordinary claims must be matched with evidence.
Do not post about VPNs or cryptocurrencies which are not listed on privacyguides.org. See Rule 2 for info on adding new recommendations to the website.
General guides or software lists are not permitted. Original sources and research about specific topics are allowed as long as they are high quality and factual. We are not providing a platform for poorly-vetted, out-of-date or conflicting recommendations.
The problem with those detectors is that they are barely better than guessing.
You’re most likely capable of outperforming such a detector by spotting semantic issues. Like when I tried to find how to configure saddle stool and the article said that my outstretched legs should reach pedals.
That may also be due to poor and cheap manual writing but you’ll not lose a lot by blocking those, I guess.
I’ve tested quite a few, and they seem extremely accurate. Even when fragments of text have been AI generated, they point those out.
I mean, some websites I’ve visited seem AI generated, and the verification sites simply confirm my suspicions.
Test them on known good articles, like those before 2019, and calculate the rate of false positives.
0% AI detected.
It does rate on a scale, so it’s not always 100% or 0% (sometimes it is). But it has been very reliable in the tests I’ve done. Apparently, false positives are something like 0.2%.