mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Evade ChatGPT Detectors via A Single Space

arXiv 2307.02599 ↗First posted 5 Jul 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 18

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

ChatGPT brings revolutionary social value but also raises concerns about the misuse of AI-generated text. Consequently, an important question is how to detect whether texts are generated by ChatGPT or by human. Existing detectors are built upon the assumption that there are distributional gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. These gaps are typically identified using statistical information or classifiers. Our research challenges the distributional gap assumption in detectors. We find that detectors do not effectively discriminate the semantic and stylistic gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. Instead, the "subtle differences", such as an extra space, become crucial for detection. Based on this discovery, we propose the SpaceInfi strategy to evade detection. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy across multiple benchmarks and detectors. We also provide a theoretical explanation for why SpaceInfi is successful in evading perplexity-based detection. And we empirically show that a phenomenon called token mutation causes the evasion for language model-based detectors. Our findings offer new insights and challenges for understanding and constructing more applicable ChatGPT detectors.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Jul 2023.

Builds on

27 of 38 references.

References · 27

  1. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  3. 2013Intriguing properties of neural networkscited by 5,114
  4. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
  5. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,674
  6. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
  7. 2023WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructionscited by 1,116
  8. 2022Red Teaming Language Models with Language Modelscited by 983
  9. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
  10. 2023DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability Curvaturecited by 705
  11. 2023Instruction Tuning with GPT-4cited by 676
  12. 2017Adversarial Examples for Evaluating Reading Comprehension Systemscited by 568
15 more
  1. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  2. 2019GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visualization of Generated Textcited by 490
  3. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  4. 2018Threat of Adversarial Attacks on Deep Learning in Computer Vision: A Surveycited by 459
  5. 2023The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forgetcited by 343
  6. 2023Multi-step Jailbreaking Privacy Attacks on ChatGPTcited by 320
  7. 2023Analyzing Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information in Language Modelscited by 278
  8. 2017Style Transfer from Non-Parallel Text by Cross-Alignmentcited by 246
  9. 2018Delete, Retrieve, Generate: A Simple Approach to Sentiment and Style Transfercited by 191
  10. 2020Automatic Detection of Machine Generated Text: A Critical Surveycited by 160
  11. 2017Style Transfer in Text: Exploration and Evaluationcited by 145
  12. 2023M4: Multi-generator, Multi-domain, and Multi-lingual Black-Box Machine-Generated Text Detectioncited by 118
  13. 2023Intrinsic Dimension Estimation for Robust Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 111
  14. 2023Multiscale Positive-Unlabeled Detection of AI-Generated Textscited by 59
  15. 2023A Pathway Towards Responsible AI Generated Contentcited by 38

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 8; 2025: 6; 2026: 1.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2024RAID: A Shared Benchmark for Robust Evaluation of Machine-Generated Text Detectorscited by 157
  2. 2024Your Large Language Models Are Leaving Fingerprintscited by 31
  3. 2023User Modeling in the Era of Large Language Models: Current Research and Future Directionscited by 18
  4. 2025Feature-Level Insights into Artificial Text Detection with Sparse Autoencoderscited by 14
  5. 2024SilverSpeak: Evading AI-Generated Text Detectors using Homoglyphscited by 11
  6. 2023Who Said That? Benchmarking Social Media AI Detectioncited by 9
  7. 2025GenAI Content Detection Task 3: Cross-Domain Machine-Generated Text Detection Challengecited by 7
  8. 2023DetectGPT-SC: Improving Detection of Text Generated by Large Language Models through Self-Consistency with Masked Predictionscited by 6
  9. 2024ESPERANTO: Evaluating Synthesized Phrases to Enhance Robustness in AI Detection for Text Originationcited by 6
  10. 2024Humanizing the Machine: Proxy Attacks to Mislead LLM Detectorscited by 6
  11. 2024Survey on Plagiarism Detection in Large Language Models: The Impact of ChatGPT and Gemini on Academic Integritycited by 5
  12. 2025A Training-free Method for LLM Text Attributioncited by 4
6 more
  1. 2024Lying Blindly: Bypassing ChatGPT's Safeguards to Generate Hard-to-Detect Disinformation Claimscited by 3
  2. 2025On the Detectability of LLM-Generated Text: What Exactly Is LLM-Generated Text?cited by 3
  3. 2024Navigating the Shadows: Unveiling Effective Disturbances for Modern AI Content Detectorscited by 2
  4. 2025GradEscape: A Gradient-Based Evader Against AI-Generated Text Detectorscited by 2
  5. 2025Attacks on Machine-Text Detectors Retain Stylistic Fingerprintscited by 0
  6. 2026EASE: Entropy-Adaptive Distribution Shaping for Evading AI-generated Text Detectorscited by 0