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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.17289 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.17289/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 11 of its 21 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Dec 2023.

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Attention Is All You Need](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03762/) (2017)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [LaMDA: Language Models for Dialog Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.08239/) (2022)
- [PaLM 2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10403/) (2023)
- [Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.09203/) (2019)
- [How Close is ChatGPT to Human Experts? Comparison Corpus, Evaluation, and Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.07597/) (2023)
- [Testing of Detection Tools for AI-Generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15666/) (2023)
- [ChatGPT or Human? Detect and Explain. Explaining Decisions of Machine Learning Model for Detecting Short ChatGPT-generated Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.13852/) (2023)
- [Will ChatGPT get you caught? Rethinking of Plagiarism Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.04335/) (2023)
- [CHEAT: A Large-scale Dataset for Detecting ChatGPT-writtEn AbsTracts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.12008/) (2023)
- [On the Detectability of ChatGPT Content: Benchmarking, Methodology, and Evaluation through the Lens of Academic Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05524/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Using LLMs to Detect LLM-Generated Texts: A Cross-Generation Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.34691/) (2026)

## 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.