Since this has gone live, StackExchange staff has provided rather more data to the Moderator community backing up their claims of AI/LLM-detection tools likely causing more harm. The details are not publicly released, so I'm not going to release it, but there is compelling evidence in there.

Most interesting to me, they used metrics only they have access to in order to heuristically determine who is likely using these tools to post content. Many of you know that the platform keeps 'hidden' versions in the background as you type. This dataset can be used to identify people who are pasting large blocks of text from other sources versus people like me who are typing a lot over the course of several minutes. This isn't an explicit ChatGPT-detector, but they shared a chart of answerers showing pasting behaviors over time.

That chart showed a large spike in the wake of ChatGPTs release, and a falling curve since. We hit parity with the pre-ChatGPT period around the first of May. This data is noisy, but when looking at periods of weeks is compelling that they've found a way to identify use of these tools. The key finding here is that AI/LLM usage isn't significant anymore.

They did another round of analysis, focusing on "people who post answers three or more times a week," which sounds like an internal "active users" metric they've been using for a while. Active users have been falling more than the long term trend as of about the first of December, and they're not sure why. Analysis hasn't given a clear answer, but one area that does seem to be affecting these numbers is the ban-rate of active users; a rate which has rocketed up in the wake of AI/LLM usage being deemed acceptable for sites to set policy about.

The ban-rate has not slacked at the same pace as detected AI/LLM usage, suggesting there is a high false positive rate. Supporting this, they revealed that they have an unprecedented rate of "unable to substantiate" results to appeals to moderator ban decisions. As in: they couldn't verify the reason for the ban.

This is data they should have posted with the earlier announcement. To their credit, this data was directly asked for and they've given it.

The data I was working from is now public: GPT on the platform: Data, actions, and outcomes

Since this has gone live, StackExchange staff has provided rather more data to the Moderator community backing up their claims of AI/LLM-detection tools likely causing more harm. The details are not publicly released, so I'm not going to release it, but there is compelling evidence in there.

Most interesting to me, they used metrics only they have access to in order to heuristically determine who is likely using these tools to post content. Many of you know that the platform keeps 'hidden' versions in the background as you type. This dataset can be used to identify people who are pasting large blocks of text from other sources versus people like me who are typing a lot over the course of several minutes. This isn't an explicit ChatGPT-detector, but they shared a chart of answerers showing pasting behaviors over time.

That chart showed a large spike in the wake of ChatGPTs release, and a falling curve since. We hit parity with the pre-ChatGPT period around the first of May. This data is noisy, but when looking at periods of weeks is compelling that they've found a way to identify use of these tools. The key finding here is that AI/LLM usage isn't significant anymore.

They did another round of analysis, focusing on "people who post answers three or more times a week," which sounds like an internal "active users" metric they've been using for a while. Active users have been falling more than the long term trend as of about the first of December, and they're not sure why. Analysis hasn't given a clear answer, but one area that does seem to be affecting these numbers is the ban-rate of active users; a rate which has rocketed up in the wake of AI/LLM usage being deemed acceptable for sites to set policy about.

The ban-rate has not slacked at the same pace as detected AI/LLM usage, suggesting there is a high false positive rate. Supporting this, they revealed that they have an unprecedented rate of "unable to substantiate" results to appeals to moderator ban decisions. As in: they couldn't verify the reason for the ban.

This is data they should have posted with the earlier announcement. To their credit, this data was directly asked for and they've given it.

The data I was working from is now public: GPT on the platform: Data, actions, and outcomes

The community response to this is happening in real time.

Since this has gone live, StackExchange staff has provided rather more data to the Moderator community backing up their claims of AI/LLM-detection tools likely causing more harm. The details are not publicly released, so I'm not going to release it, but there is compelling evidence in there.

Most interesting to me, they used metrics only they have access to in order to heuristically determine who is likely using these tools to post content. Many of you know that the platform keeps 'hidden' versions in the background as you type. This dataset can be used to identify people who are pasting large blocks of text from other sources versus people like me who are typing a lot over the course of several minutes. This isn't an explicit ChatGPT-detector, but they shared a chart of answerers showing pasting behaviors over time.

That chart showed a large spike in the wake of ChatGPTs release, and a falling curve since. We hit parity with the pre-ChatGPT period around the first of May. This data is noisy, but when looking at periods of weeks is compelling that they've found a way to identify use of these tools. The key finding here is that AI/LLM usage isn't significant anymore.

They did another round of analysis, focusing on "people who post answers three or more times a week," which sounds like an internal "active users" metric they've been using for a while. Active users have been falling more than the long term trend as of about the first of December, and they're not sure why. Analysis hasn't given a clear answer, but one area that does seem to be affecting these numbers is the ban-rate of active users; a rate which has rocketed up in the wake of AI/LLM usage being deemed acceptable for sites to set policy about.

The ban-rate has not slacked at the same pace as detected AI/LLM usage, suggesting there is a high false positive rate. Supporting this, they revealed that they have an unprecedented rate of "unable to substantiate" results to appeals to moderator ban decisions. As in: they couldn't verify the reason for the ban.

This is data they should have posted with the earlier announcement. To their credit, this data was directly asked for and they've given it.

Since this has gone live, StackExchange staff has provided rather more data to the Moderator community backing up their claims of AI/LLM-detection tools likely causing more harm. The details are not publicly released, so I'm not going to release it, but there is compelling evidence in there.

Most interesting to me, they used metrics only they have access to in order to heuristically determine who is likely using these tools to post content. Many of you know that the platform keeps 'hidden' versions in the background as you type. This dataset can be used to identify people who are pasting large blocks of text from other sources versus people like me who are typing a lot over the course of several minutes. This isn't an explicit ChatGPT-detector, but they shared a chart of answerers showing pasting behaviors over time.

That chart showed a large spike in the wake of ChatGPTs release, and a falling curve since. We hit parity with the pre-ChatGPT period around the first of May. This data is noisy, but when looking at periods of weeks is compelling that they've found a way to identify use of these tools. The key finding here is that AI/LLM usage isn't significant anymore.

They did another round of analysis, focusing on "people who post answers three or more times a week," which sounds like an internal "active users" metric they've been using for a while. Active users have been falling more than the long term trend as of about the first of December, and they're not sure why. Analysis hasn't given a clear answer, but one area that does seem to be affecting these numbers is the ban-rate of active users; a rate which has rocketed up in the wake of AI/LLM usage being deemed acceptable for sites to set policy about.

The ban-rate has not slacked at the same pace as detected AI/LLM usage, suggesting there is a high false positive rate. Supporting this, they revealed that they have an unprecedented rate of "unable to substantiate" results to appeals to moderator ban decisions. As in: they couldn't verify the reason for the ban.

This is data they should have posted with the earlier announcement. To their credit, this data was directly asked for and they've given it.

The data I was working from is now public: GPT on the platform: Data, actions, and outcomes