Talk:Artificial intelligence content detection

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Artificial intelligence content detection article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology

Artificial Intelligence

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence

On 6 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to AI content detector. The result of the discussion was Moved to Artificial intelligence content detection.

Article title

Hi. Ideally, the title of the Wikipedia article should correspond to an expression that is commonly used or that people would intuitively search for. My impression is that it is not so much the case with the title "Artificial intelligence detection software". A search on Google seems to return other formulations like "AI detection", "AI detector", "AI content detection", "AI content detector" or "AI detection tool". Do you think we should keep the current title, or does one of these alternative names seem better ? Alenoach (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alenoach: Hi there, thanks for taking an interest in this article. As the article creator, I admit I struggled with what to call this, and I've no objections if you wish to move this article to a more recognisable title. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the title is miselading, but for a different reason. The article only contains information about the unreliability of AI content detection, not how they work or major products. Winter the Mute (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, I would welcome any addition you have on how AI works and major products related to content detection - provided it's all reliably sourced and not used as a vehicle for promoting any particular software. GnocchiFan (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Artificial intelligence content detection. Discussion arrived at a consensus to move to Artificial intelligence content detection, due to MOS:ACROTITLE and an consensus to focus on the more general concept than on the tools. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence detection software → AI content detector – Per the above discussion on the talk page, this may be a more common term, while also being encyclopedic and not promoting a particular detection software. Seeking user input; as the article creator, I'm unsure what to name this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gnnochi, yes the other user makes a good point; the accessibility of this piece is important.

As a contributor to your page, I must say that while the original title does sound more formal, I am in favor of the change. Comintell (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have a slight preference for "AI content detection" over "AI content detector", because it's maybe better to focus on the more general concept than on the tools that apply that concept (I don't know if this explanation makes sense). But both names are ok.

Once renamed, we can make redirects from the other alternative names to the new main title, which should increase the visibility of your article. Alenoach (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I tend to agree with you on this. Thanks for the constructive feedback; I really appreciate it! 🙂 GnocchiFan (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly Support - I'm onboard with replacing detection software with content detector or content detection and prefer the latter. I don't think we should replace Artificial intelligence with AI because of MOS:ACROTITLE and because this particular acronym looks ambiguous in many fonts (could be mistaken for diminutive of Albert). ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Artificial intelligence content detector and oppose move to AI content detector. I think that the proposed "content detector" is an improvement over the current title, but I also don't think that MOS:ACROTITLE would guide us towards abbreviating "AI" here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referencing Neurodiversity and Non-Native english speakers

@GnocchiFan I'm mentioning you since you're the creator of this article and your feedback would be appreciated. In the last year, there has been a lot of research regarding AI Content Detection specifically in it's apparent bias towards falsely flagging work written by people who are neurodiverse, or whose first language isn't English.

1) Stanford on Non-Native Eng. Speakers - 1a) The research paper from 1

2) This references ND People too - 2a) This is a news story referenced in 2

I do also think some separation could be done, adding subsections (under accuracy issues?) for False Negatives and False Positives, more could be done but that's off the top of my head. If you're interested, let me know, I have more sources if needed!! :) EM 1NH3 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EM 1NH3: Hi there! I agree that these would be good additions to the article and would improve it. I had heard about the issues relating to non-native English speakers; I haven't read much on the difficulties with neurodiverse people (thanks for the read!) but as someone who is AuDHD myself it doesn't surprise me.

I also think the subsection idea is good too. I won't be able to make any changes myself (for personal reasons, I'm not able to edit Wikipedia as much as I'd like and can only do on mobile, which isn't great), but please feel free to go ahead and make these edits. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GnocchiFan: I quickly wrote up a false flags subsection, though it could use some polishing up. If you see anything that should be changed or that sticks out, or even just a reformatting, please let me know and I can do it!

Thank you for such a fast response yesterday btw! EM 1NH3 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EM 1NH3: No worries at all! The section looks good, I retitled it as "false positives and false negatives" as "false flags" may have other meanings; if you can think of a more concise title let me know. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GnocchiFan: That makes sense! I had gone back and forth between those two titles, just settled for the shorter one. All looks good! Thank you for checking it over :D EM 1NH3 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]