mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

AI Content Self-Detection for Transformer-based Large Language Models

arXiv 2312.17289 ↗First posted 28 Dec 2023cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The usage of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on large language models, including ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude, for text generation has many exciting applications with the potential for phenomenal productivity gains. One issue is authorship attribution when using AI tools. This is especially important in an academic setting where the inappropriate use of generative AI tools may hinder student learning or stifle research by creating a large amount of automatically generated derivative work. Existing plagiarism detection systems can trace the source of submitted text but are not yet equipped with methods to accurately detect AI-generated text. This paper introduces the idea of direct origin detection and evaluates whether generative AI systems can recognize their output and distinguish it from human-written texts. We argue why current transformer-based models may be able to self-detect their own generated text and perform a small empirical study using zero-shot learning to investigate if that is the case. Results reveal varying capabilities of AI systems to identify their generated text. Google's Bard model exhibits the largest capability of self-detection with an accuracy of 94%, followed by OpenAI's ChatGPT with 83%. On the other hand, Anthropic's Claude model seems to be not able to self-detect.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Dec 2023.

Builds on

11 of 21 references.

References · 11

  1. 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 59,932
  2. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferencescited by 2,124
  3. 2022LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applicationscited by 1,218
  4. 2023PaLM 2 Technical Reportcited by 1,154
  5. 2019Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Modelscited by 505
  6. 2023How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detectioncited by 472
  7. 2023Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Textcited by 86
  8. 2023ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Textcited by 84
  9. 2023Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detectioncited by 41
  10. 2023CHEAT: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT-writtEn AbsTractscited by 39
  11. 2023On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writingcited by 26

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.