Status: anti-counterfeit technology
Last year I posted about a group of MIT students who created an
Automatic Scientific Paper Generator, capable of creating "random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations." One of the papers created by this program was accepted for presentation at the World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. To stop something like this happening again, researchers at the Indiana University School of Informaics have invented an
Inauthentic Paper Detector. It's supposed to be able to tell whether a paper has been written by a human or a machine. The researchers write: "The main purpose of this software is to detect whether a technical document conforms to the statistical standards of an expository text... We are trying to detect new, machine written texts that are simply generated not to have any meaning, yet appear to have meaning on the surface."
I tested the Inauthentic Paper Detector by having it analyze the last couple of entries I've written. It told me: "This text had been classified as INAUTHENTIC with a 38.4% chance of being authentic text." I guess this confirms the theory that the real Alex drowned in Loch Ness back in September 2004 and was
replaced by replicant Alex. (via
New Scientist)
Comments
Huh. I guess the thousand monkeys working on a thousand typewriters really does produce good work. Shame about the knife fights.
A big, fat, INAUTHENTIC.
Damn.
Well, I've only one scientific paper to hand - a Lancet review of the Toxoplasmosis literature. Since that's a rather small sample, I added 5 abstracts ripped off PubMed:
Toxoplasmosis (seminar)
Rating: INAUTHENTIC
with a 38.2% chance of being authentic text
Cell aggregation of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain PAO1 as an energy-dependent stress response during growth with sodium dodecyl sulfate.
Rating: AUTHENTIC
with a 59.6% chance of being an authentic paper
Cyanide detoxification by the cobalamin precursor cobinamide
Rating: INAUTHENTIC
with a 33.5% chance of being authentic text
In vitro evaluation of stent patency and in-stent stenoses in 10 metallic stents using MR angiography.
Rating: INAUTHENTIC
with a 29.2% chance of being authentic text
Long-Term Clinical Outcome in Patients With Congenital Chloride Diarrhea
Rating: INAUTHENTIC
with a 12.6% chance of being authentic text
Addition of Carbenes to the Sidewalls of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes
Rating: INAUTHENTIC
with a 27.9% chance of being authentic text
OH MY GOD!!! It's SO CLEAR that there is a HORRIBLE scandal here - almost all published medical papers are inauthentic!!! Someone should be told!!!
Oh, I ran 6 real fake papers, too - all were rated inauthentic. But with 5/6 false positives, who cares?
This text had been classified as
INAUTHENTIC
with a 12.9% chance of being authentic text
LOL. Maybe my wife was in on it. Like a Stepford Husband kind of thing.
Hmm...the most authentic-looking paper is on my strengths and weaknesses...odd...
The only one it said was authentic was a comparison of the first four books of the New Testament, with a 91.5% chance of being an authentic paper.
It did correctly identify one "paper" that I submitted that was total gibberish as being only 13.3% authentic. I suspect that it will correctly identify most inauthentic papers simply due to the fact that it considers nearly anything to be inauthentic.
Result : This text had been classified as
INAUTHENTIC
with a 15.2% chance of being authentic text
I say the US has a problem... the Declaration of Independence is actually the creation of high level groups of interest that rule from the shadows.
Bulls*it 😉
T.
Seriously though - any fool could write a silly program that comes up with these bogus results. Who knows what the actual logic is - it's probably somne complete nonsense.