Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Fake Scientific Paper Detector

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the paper-unnoticed-amidst-conference-white-noise dept.


moon_monkey writes "Ever wondered whether a scientific paper was actually written by a robot? A new program developed by researchers at Indiana University promises to tell you one way or the other. It was actually developed in response to a prank by MIT researchers who generated a paper from random bits of text and got it accepted for a conference."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Yes! (4, Funny)

stupidfoo (836212) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199809)

I am always wondering what those damn robots are up to!

Re:Yes! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200044)

...or we could have a human just read the damn thing.

Novel idea.

too bad this technology... (-1, Offtopic)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199826)

..isn't going to be used to show that iraq is a fake war (with a lot of real costs and lives)

Re:too bad this technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199858)

..isn't going to be used to show that iraq is a fake war (with a lot of real costs and lives)

Your ideas are interesting and I want to subscribe to your newsletter

Re:too bad this technology... (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199894)

Way to plug your political agenda.

What we really need is a fake Extacy detector. The world would be a better place.

Re:too bad this technology... (0, Offtopic)

fribhey (731586) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200061)

hmmm, i thought iraq was a country? you're saying its a war? wow, i learn something new every day.

Re:too bad this technology... (0, Offtopic)

xxdinkxx (560434) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200112)

it seems that some people on slashdot are so mindset-boolean. that it never occured to them that the statement was serious, but the way it was stated was a joke. Go watch some of the absurd things "papa bear" as colbert calls him says... hasn't anyone ever heard the expression never feed a troll.. have a good day.

Re:too bad this technology... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200113)

Well, it is a fake war in the sense it is based on multiple false premises and that its only real purpose was the short term political gain necessary to (just barely) get George Bush elected for a second (and hopefully, if the Constitution is still in effect in 2008, final) term. The continuing chaos and loss of lives is also beneficial to George Bush in that he is able to give more and more no-bid contracts to clean up the mess (which appears to be designed with no real end in sight) to his cronies in the private sector. Thus, the Republican party gets funding even though the only constituency they are (really) helping is one made up of corporations the Republican party is giving the government's money to. It is the perfect war for the actual purpose it was created for. That purpose is no where near what it was sold to the American people as. I wish we had a detector for this kind of bullshit, or at least a media that prior to 2005 was willing to report on the corruption in the Republican White House.

That's good and all (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199830)

but I wonder if it can tell if a paper was written by a million monkeys pounding on typewriters?

Re:That's good and all (4, Funny)

denverradiosucks (653647) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199893)

Obligatory Simpson's Quote

Monkey's typing on a typewriter as Mr. Burn's is working on the next great american novel:

Burns: This is a thousand monkeys working at a thousand typewriters. Soon they'll have written the greatest novel known to man.
(monkey smoking cigar typing on a typewriter)
Burns: Lets see. It was the best of times, it was the BLURST of times! You stupid monkey! (Smacks monkey upside his head)

Turing test? (5, Insightful)

Nesetril (969734) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199833)

so can a robot write a paper and then decide whether the paper was written by a robot (itself)?

Self defeating? (5, Funny)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199911)

It seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to modify the MIT program to use this new anti-robot robot to write papers that this anti-robot robot would not be able to detect. Ideally, this would be done with a learning algorithm (so that it could easily be extended to other anti-robot robot programs), but reverse-engineering the anti-robot robot (by humans) should also provide a solution.

Now that Indiana U has thrown down the gauntlet, I wouldn't be surprised if MIT responds. Hopefully it will result in an even better paper-writing robot. Ideally, it will lead to dissertation-writing robots. :)

Re:Self defeating? (4, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199978)

I recently had to check out an essay-grading robot for my Introduction to Natural Language Processing class.

I'd fed it the introduction of a randomly generated essay. It got a 4/5 on all counts.

I figure, if teachers are going to use robots to grade essays, we should use robots to create them in the first place.

Re:Self defeating? (1)

AnalystX (633807) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200096)

You're right. That's essentially what I brought up in my other post (before seeing this post). This is like the plight of spam filtering, virus detection, or any kind of warfare-counterwarfare scenario. As soon as one side comes up with a defense, the other side studies it and makes adjustments to compensate. With as varied as the results can be from author to author, I don't see a reliable detection solution coming anytime soon.

Re:Self defeating? (5, Funny)

mctk (840035) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200134)

Eventually my students won't have to write papers and I won't have to grade them! Think of the potential application of this technology towards education!

Re:Self defeating? (1)

quokkapox (847798) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200210)

The day is coming when you'll have to submit an authentic scientific paper in order to comment on a slashdot story.

On that day, I'll be long dead and so will my Moravec-inspired uploaded mind-children.

Testing... (2, Interesting)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199834)

"We believe that there are subtle, short- and long-range word or even word string repetitions that exist in human texts, but not in many classes of computer-generated texts that can be used to discriminate based on meaning."


Yep, it works!

First Post! RouterSlayer Rules! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199838)

First Post!

RouterSlayer Rules!

A USEFUL application... (2, Funny)

Flimzy (657419) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199841)

When will MIT modify this technology to filter all the spam from my mailbox?

Discrimination (5, Funny)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199843)

I hope the ACLU will ensure that discrimination against metal people will not be allowed to continue.

Re:Discrimination (1)

OglinTatas (710589) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200199)

I hope the ACLU will ensure that discrimination against metal people will not be allowed to continue.

That is people of metal, you biologist

I have a better solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199846)

How about an intelligent human who understands the field actually READING the paper before putting it in a "peer reviewed" journal.

Some fields don't have those (1)

spun (1352) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199918)

Literary criticism, for instance. Lit. Crit. papers never make sense so only some form of advanced computer algorithm would be able to tell if a paper was written by a human.

An interesting experiment (4, Funny)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199847)

Has anybody fed Dvorak's latest column [slashdot.org] to this program? I've often wondered if he actually writes his columns, or just generate verbiage at random.

Re:An interesting experiment (5, Funny)

irregular_hero (444800) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199898)

"This text had been classified as
with a 24.9% chance of being authentic text"

No kidding.

Re:An interesting experiment (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200000)

Yep, I tried that too.
I also tried another article from ABC News about meat eaters contributing to global warming (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1856817 &page=1 [go.com]). It was inauthentic/28.8%.

Looks like they have a crafty team of robots there at abc :)

Re:An interesting experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199960)

74.9% FAKE.

Watch this get modded Informative.

Re:An interesting experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199963)

This text had been classified as
with a 25.7% chance of being authentic text

Dvorak FAILS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200017)

Ask and ye shall receive:

This text had been classified as
with a 25.7% chance of being authentic text


Re:Dvorak FAILS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200180)

uh.. RouterSlayer, why did you post anonymously?

Re:An interesting experiment (1)

DerCed (155038) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200037)

Actually, I get

This text had been classified as INAUTHENTIC with a 25.7% chance of being authentic text


Re:An interesting experiment (2, Informative)

Ontain (931201) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200038)

that's not surprising. i did a few articles and they come up in the 20ish percent range. this detector isn't very good.

How about . . . (1)

denverradiosucks (653647) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199852)

How about a paper detector that will decide between 1 and 2 ply?

Re:How about . . . (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199982)

Hey, if you don't like 1-ply you can always fold it in half.

Re:How about . . . (2, Funny)

mypalmike (454265) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200156)

Hey, if you don't like 1-ply you can always fold it in half.

And if you don't like 2-ply, you can separate the sheets. Keep in mind that this works best before you wipe.

My take on the subject (1)

yfkar (866011) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199855)

Suppose that in the future, there exists certifiable technology such that we can easily enable the analysis of fake articles. This may or may not actually hold in reality, but it's nonetheless a practical property of the system. Heuristic does not require such a key simulation to run correctly, but it doesn't hurt. This may or may not actually hold in reality. It can be assumed that these algorithms can observe probabilistic information without needing to manage game-theoretic modalities. Thus, the methodology that MIT uses is solidly grounded in reality.

How to Outsmart the Fake Scientific Paper Detector (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199966)

Soon, I was pinned against the wall as his body pressed into mine. We kissed passionately. His kisses become erotic, kissing and sucking everywhere from my mouth to my neck. I groaned as he slowly thrust his hips against my bulging member. Slowly, he pushed and pushed, giving me a wonderful new sensation from my small brain down there. Suddenly I realized that we're still inside school, standing in the middle of the hallway! I groaned as I whispered, "I don't think it safe to do this here!"

He stopped a second later and took my hand. "You're right, c'mon!" He pulled my hand as we both ran around the school trying to find a 'safe' place. We walked down to the basement and secretly entered one of the unused classrooms. The room was dark and empty. A single ray of sunlight was beaming through a high window in the corner of the room. Rob used his free hand to lock the door and led me over to a small piece of carpet in the center or the room. He took my other hand and looked at me lovingly before kissing me. We dropped to our knees and embraced. He giggled softly as he started kissing me. We both lay down on the cheap carpet not trying not to separate ourselves from each other.

"These are going to be the best minutes of yourself Timmy!"

"Minutes?" I asked snickering.

"This is going to be my first time," he whispered before landing a kiss on my lips. "Besides, we're in school you know!"

"Heheh, I thought you already lost your virginity to some girl?" I asked nibbling his bottom lip.

He mumbled, "No way man! I'm not that desperate!"

His weight held my whole body down as I kissed him passionately. Our tongues fought inside my mouth as his hands slowly brushed my blonde hair aside. My hands slowly slipped under his shirt, making their way up his stomach toward his nipples. Upon reaching my goal, I gently pinched his nipples, causing him to groan loudly. He continued groaning as he sucked my bottom lip, "M...man...timmy...that...feels... great!"

Rob rose up and sat on my hips as he ripped his uniform apart the same way superman did. He threw it across the room. I giggled as buttons were flying everywhere. "You don't have to ruin a uniform for me!"

"It's faster this way!"

He pulled my golf shirt up exposing my bare chest. I took a deep breath. Rob sniffed and sucked my nipples causing me to also groan and pant uncontrollably. When I finally removed my golf shirt, Rob's hands had slowly crept down to my waist and he was unzipping my pants. The instant his fingers touched my sensitive head through my briefs, my body and mind both went crazy from the intense feeling. He made a trail of saliva with his tongue from middle of my rib cage down to my navel. He licked the little hole for a while before he moved further down, pulling off my briefs and releasing my aching cock. He gently stroked his fingers through my small patch of golden brown pubic hair. Finally, he grabbed my 5'1/2" cock with his hand started pumping it like he was grating a carrot. Then, he stopped suddenly and moved his face down to more closely examine all I had to offer. He never broke eye contact with me while his tongue explored my balls. He gently took them, one at a time into his mouth and massaged them with his tongue. I thought I had gone to heaven. I had never felt anything like this before. Then, all of a sudden, he engulfed my cock slowly going down until his nose finally touched my pubes. He went up and down slowly, savoring the taste. My body quickly reacted and I began humping his face rapidly, but he grabbed my hips and held me down while he continued sucking slowly. I begged him to go faster, I had to release my love juice! He moved his hand to my shaft while still licking the crown of my very swollen member. He squeezed it making me groan and squirm to death. The glory inside me finally came. With one quick motion, my dick stiffened and cum shot up my chest, following his trail of saliva down to my navel. Still more landed in my pubes and the rest trickled down the head onto his fingers. While I panted like a madman, he licked the cum off of my shaft and then worked his way back up past my navel and back up to my chest. I was still gasping for breath when he finished cleaning every drop of my love juice. He sat up, spread his legs wide, and unzipped his pants. Smiling, he said, "My turn!"

I slowly crawled to get closer to him. My head moved forward between his legs. He opened his pants and pulled down the boxers he was wearing. Incredible! The first time I've ever seen another cock this close! I was beginning to think that this day would never come, and certainly never with Rob. His dick was almost identical to mine, circumcised, and about 5'1/2" long. The only difference was that it was a bit pinker than mine was, and the bush crowning his member was almost dark brown. "I'm ready!" he sighed. He leaned back using his hands to support his body weight. I explored his cock a little bit more, I wanted to remember this moment. He's balls were bigger than mine were, they were so big, that they almost looked swollen! I sniffed the delicious scent his cock was giving me before I nibbled his pink head. He sighed as my tongue covered his entire head trying to find what it tasted like. It was a bit salty at first but when I kept licking it, it tasted like nothing...until his precum came out of the slit. Somehow, it tasted sweet! I had tasted mine before and it was like putting pure salt on my tongue...but his was like nectar! I let his prick slide into my mouth. He groaned a bit louder this time. I stayed there, not moving. I felt his cock throbbing and his heartbeat getting faster and faster. I bobbed up and down slowly and evenly trying not to scrape his sensitive cock with my teeth. He slammed his fist on the floor as I went faster. Suddenly he screamed out, "Oh my god!!!"

Cum spurted inside my mouth. Five squirts and he completely went down on the floor panting from the extreme orgasm he just had...well from what I've experienced it WAS! He moaned, "That was good! Better than imagining you while I jerk my boy toy off by myself!"

"So, you actually think of me when you do...that?"

"Well...yeah. Hope you not mad!" he apologized.

I smiled saying "I don't know" and confessed I too had done the same thing. I ended up giggling as I put my golf shirt back on and zipped my pants. He was trying to do the same thing, but it was more difficult for him to dress as he had ripped off his shirt. We giggled and blushed at the same time as we went back to our locker in a state of euphoria. I didn't look at him but I knew he was smiling just as I was. We didn't talk either. I mean, what's there to talk about after sex? Besides, I was still speechless after the wonderful experience I had just had.

Oh, come on! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199859)

... are you implying that the guy who reads those papers is unable to identify if they were automatically written?

-- Serhei

Typos (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199860)

"We believe that there are subtle, short- and long-range word or even word string repetitions that exist in human texts, but not in many classes of computer-generated texts that can be used to discriminate based on meaning."

Do robots make typos? Do they make the same typos each time, or different ones?

Therein lies the true heart of a proper detector.

Re:Typos (1)

DanTheLewis (742271) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199904)

Do robots make typos? Do they make the same typos each time, or different ones? Therein lies the true heart of a proper detector. I don't make typos, but that doesnt mean I'm not a robot.

Re:Typos (2, Informative)

dlakelan (43245) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199941)

Do robots make typos? Do they make the same typos each time, or different ones?

Based on the slashdot articles that get posted. I would say YES.

Actually it's pretty easy to add random convincing misspellings to text, you could use a database from something like usenet, and a spell checker to map misspelled words to their real counterparts, and then have a straightforward algorithm for replacing some set of words with misspellings, and you could tune that for consistency. It would be easier than many other aspects of faking papers.

The mentioned robo-article (1)

johnfink (810028) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199865)

From the paper. (1)

The Real Nem (793299) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200254)

One must understand our network configuration to grasp the genesis of our results. We ran a deployment on the NSA's planetary-scale overlay network to disprove the mutually largescale behavior of exhaustive archetypes. First, we halved the effective optical drive space of our mobile telephones to better understand the median latency of our desktop machines. This step flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but is instrumental to our results. We halved the signal-to-noise ratio of our mobile telephones. We tripled the tape drive speed of DARPA's 1000-node testbed. Further, we tripled the RAM space of our embedded testbed to prove the collectively secure behavior of lazily saturated, topologically noisy modalities. Similarly, we doubled the optical drive speed of our scalable cluster. Lastly, Japanese experts halved the effective hard disk throughput of Intel's mobile telephones.

Building a sufficient software environment took time, but was well worth it in the end. We implemented our scatter/gather I/O server in Simula-67, augmented with oportunistically pipelined extensions. Our experiments soon proved that automating our parallel 5.25" floppy drives was more effective than autogenerating them, as previous work suggested. Similarly, We note that other researchers have tried and failed to enable this functionality.

Lets see:

  • Access to the "NSA's planetary-scale overlay network". - Check.
  • Access to "DARPA's 1000-node testbed". - Check.
  • "Mobile telephones" with "optical drives". - Check.
  • Use of "Japanese experts". - Check.
  • "Mobile telephones" with "hard drives" produced by "Intel". - Check.
  • Use of a horribly outdated programming language ("Simula-67"). - Check.
  • Use of the phrase "parallel 5.25" floppy drives" in a sentence that makes absolutely no sense. - Check.

How anyone would have thought this paper wasn't a flaming pile of BS is beyond me. I especially like the graph that measures time in teraflops. WTF???

Sadly, It appears that I am a robot. (3, Interesting)

cbelt3 (741637) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199872)

I've taken a long posting that I wrote on my blog and dropped it into the site. And I am Inauthentic. Now I understand the "Bladerunner Moment" comment in the article. I shall begin to surround myself with oddly colored polaroids and snapshots of theoretically implanted ancestors.

The nice thing is that we've finally settled the argument if machines can be made to drink beer and like it !

Re:Sadly, It appears that I am a robot. (1)

Profane MuthaFucka (574406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200152)

I just did the exact same thing, and it scored 30.4%, rated inauthentic. I agree completely with these results. Everything I write is counterfeit because I wrote it myself.

See what it says about slashdot (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199880)

According the the program, the comments to this article are rated as follows:

This text had been classified as INAUTHENTIC with a 32.2% chance of being authentic text

Bearing in mind that text over 50% chance will be classified as authentic, this add credence to the theory that slashdot comments are generated by monkeys randomly typing on keyboards.

Think of the monkeys... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200054)

The Monkey Anti-Defamation League has retained our law firm of Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe, to represent them in this matter.

We demand you cease and desist from defaming Monkeys by comparing them to Slashdot posters. If this defamation continues, we will be forced to persue legal action. Or to mod you off topic because TFA is about robots, not monkeys.


John Q. Cheatum, IV, Esq.

Re:See what it says about slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200125)

Look in the mirror, buddy.

Re:See what it says about slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200224)

djdfjkhf rfriojo frrfik ikfdljlfd fggjkgl gfgljgijk fkfjlgr r9r9 dfiofggj diljdd
lkdjdkjl MOLLY WANT BANANA logsdjisdglkj gfdlgjglfj fglfgkjgfkj fklfgjglfkjgf
fgdkjgdl;kgf fglkjgflkgdfj fglkjfglgf fglkjgflgfkj fgkljfglgfkj

Sounds like a major innovation in input screening (1)

mi (197448) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199885)

From e-mail spam, to Slashdot submissions, to "letters to editor", to political petitions.

Or is this just another application of Bayesian filters again?

Result: Darwin is fake, so is the bible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199886)

I'm sure the ID people will apply it to "Origin of species", while others will apply it to the bible.

It Caught Mine (1)

darthservo (942083) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199896)

I tried turning in my paper, but this program caught it and I failed.

I guess I should have put a little more effort into faking it, instead of just printing out one of the word salad [wikipedia.org] spams I got in my inbox.

Duh? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15199899)

Light on details but I assume that to create this thing a bunch of known-real and known-fake papers were analzyed and they just found patterns that were indicative of a fake. They wouldn't even have to understand why...just dump a bunch of statistics and choose the ones more associated with the fake pile. Just like reverse-engineering spam filters, it could be circumvented by discovering whatever the "real" properties are and focusing on them.

The program is a failure. (2, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199933)

Apperantly I'm on average 49% artificial, based on school papers I wrote. I dub thee program: a failure.

Re:The program is a failure. (1)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200168)

Not so. The Miller-Rabin algorithm will randomly allow 25% of all composites through.

The trick to reading the results is when it says "definitely fake" it's fake. Otherwise you ignore the result as either "not-fake" or inconclusive.


Only works for scientific papers (4, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199936)

If you try to use it on any human written NON scientific paper, such as Lincoln's gettyburg address, it almost always considers it false.

I suspect that it is looking for the conventional thinking with conventional word structure. As such, it is NOT a good idea i

Incase anyone was wondering... (1)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199955)

...I just extracted the text from the PDF version of their paper [indiana.edu] on the subject (titled "Using Compression to Identify Classes of Inauthentic Texts") and ran it through the detector.

It passed with a "90.1% of being an authentic paper.

What a Downer (1)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199965)

This kinda makes me feel stupid ... I had an undergrad paper accepted at a conference and I went and presented there ... I always felt good about that, cause I was sure some prof read it, enjoyed it, and thus the reason I got the call to present. I guess I was wrong ... they don't read em, they just pick random ones out of the pile.

Re:What a Downer (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200227)

Don't feel too bad, at many conferences, the "Pros" make up the presentation on the spot while the preceeding presenter is presenting his research and insight..

evolution of bots (1)

Odocoileus (802272) | more than 7 years ago | (#15199971)

What I think is interesting is that program is like an environmental hurdle for computerized paper writers everywhere. Now the bots must become more advanced.

Doesn't Make Sense (1)

AnalystX (633807) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200002)

Why does anyone think this could effectively detect "robot" papers? All a robot has to do is incorporate this litmus test into its writing algorithm and make recursive changes until the paper passes.

Teen idols fleeing the country... (1)

turtleAJ (910000) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200020)

Oh shit!

We've just found out how Britney Spears and Puff Daddy's groups make their album's lyrics!

They're out of the job for sure... ;p

surely already done? (1)

user24 (854467) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200030)

plenty of plagiarism detection software out there; if the prank was really just random bits of (I assume pre-existing and public) text, then all the program need do is search google for a few random snippets, no?

Israel bombs Iran with US Air Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200110)

Israel bombs Iran with US AWACS support. It's hit the fan.

FYI: it wasn't really a conference (1)

jxyama (821091) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200119)

FYI, the "conference" the prank paper was accepted for is arguably a real "conference," it's certainly not a reputable one. The "conference" ("World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics") is famous for spamming everyone in just about every semi-related subject to submit and has famousely low bar for acceptance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMSCI [wikipedia.org]

As I espected (1)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200120)

JAR JAR Oyi, mooie-mooie! I luv yous! The frog-like creature kisses the JEDI.
QUI-GON Are you brainless? You almost got us killed!
JAR JAR I spake.
QUI-GON The ability to speak does not make you intelligent. Now get outta here!

This text had been classified as INAUTHENTIC with a 46.0% chance of being authentic text

MY Boss Will kill me! (1)

Gno (970625) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200154)

Damn I actully have to hand write thoose TPS reports. I had my TPS writer 3000 do it all for me before.

Reliable? (1)

SpiritGod21 (884402) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200158)

Results on an article I wrote recently for my blog:
This text had been classified as
with a 28.1% chance of being authentic text

Maybe that just means my writing is well done?

I've had several professors that prefer we email our work to them for a variety of reasons, and I wouldn't be surprised if one of those was to check the originality and validity of our essays. I don't think it's a far step before they start using something like this to see if our writing is original... but just like lie detector tests and other means of verifying the "truth," it's not accurate and shouldn't be used with the assumption that it is.

That won't stop someone from doing so, however.

There're a lot of "my stuff was inauthentic" posts (1)

The_REAL_DZA (731082) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200172)

from people who have fed it (and no, I haven't R'd TFA -- this is still SlashDot, isn't it?!?!) their own (genuine) papers or something they feel is "authentic", and I wonder if the reason is less the fault of the software and more the fault of (genuine/human) authors writing (intentionally or unintentionally) in such a style because it's perceived to be the way they're "supposed" to write. Maybe software like this will cause authors to put a little more thought into their craft and not allow themselves to just write on autopilot.

Folks, I am a robot plagiarist (1)

Flying pig (925874) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200197)

I took one of my own postings and got a score of 11%. And it was something I had actually written myself, a piece of reasonable length about a subject on which I have first hand experience.

I then tried an article from Scientific American and it scored 24% - sorry, guys, time for me to cancel the subscription, you are full of it. Alternatively, of course, it is the University of Indiana School of Informatics that's full of it and the air is thick with over-hype. It would be interesting for someone with the time and energy to feed in some papers on string theory and some articles on astrology and compare the results.

I am in awe (4, Informative)

DingerX (847589) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200211)

So I go there, and I start shoving it text from my hard drive. I try:

A) Text of an article (Philosophy) I (native English speaker) wrote in Italian: 98.5 Authentic.
B) Text of an article I wrote in English (History): 87.8
C) Text of an article (History) written in French by a native French speaker and translated into English: 93.2
D) Critical edition of a 14th-century Latin text (Theology): 97.7 Authentic.
E) Documentation to a Field Artillery Simulation: 95.3
F) A completely bogus narrative for a monastic order that doesn't exist, written in a style that mimics A)-C): 16.8% Inauthentic

So in this case, we have a human written document that has superficial meaning, but is written as a "fake scientific paper", and registering as such.

And yes, I did read the "purpose" of the page; I know it's not supposed to detect it.

And yet it does, decisively.

Kinda Weird... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15200253)

I made a paper, and got a 24.3% chance of Authenticity, then changed one word, and got it up to 24.5%.
Either it can read my mind, or has a weird algorithim(sp?).

Oprah (1)

maddash1946 (969486) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200232)

No doubt this paper will soon be turned into a book and will make Oprah's list.

"A Million Little Lines of Code"?

I tried it out on my jornal publications.... (1)

Brit_in_the_USA (936704) | more than 7 years ago | (#15200245)

....and it appears that the detection software rates them INauthentic if I only give it the first page of text (about 300 words), a ~25% score.

With 3 or more pages of text the score seems to converge to ~93% (authentic).

So be careful when scannign short articles or documents.

I stand by my claim that the papers I used were written by a human (me) and so was this post.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account