Spaces:
Runtime error
Runtime error
Update app.py
Browse files
app.py
CHANGED
@@ -3,38 +3,20 @@ st.set_page_config(layout="wide")
|
|
3 |
|
4 |
st.title("AI Detectability Index (ADI)")
|
5 |
|
6 |
-
st.write("As new LLMs continue to emerge at an accelerated pace, the usability of prevailing AGTD techniques might not endure indefinitely. To align with the ever-changing landscape of LLMs, we introduce the AI Detectability Index (ADI), which identifies the discernable range for LLMs based on SoTA AGTD techniques. The hypothesis behind this proposal is that both LLMs and AGTD techniques' SoTA benchmarks can be regularly updated to adapt to the evolving landscape. Additionally, ADI serves as a litmus test to gauge whether contemporary LLMs have surpassed the ADI benchmark and are thereby rendering themselves impervious to detection, or whether new methods for AI-generated text detection will require the ADI standard to be reset and re-calibrated.")
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
9 |
-
# Create two columns
|
10 |
-
|
|
|
11 |
|
12 |
-
# Add text to the left column (40% area)
|
13 |
-
with col1:
|
14 |
-
|
15 |
-
first proposed by Wiggers (2022), entails the incorporation of an imperceptible signal to establish the
|
16 |
-
authorship of a specific text with a high degree of
|
17 |
-
certainty. This approach is analogous to encryption
|
18 |
-
and decryption. Kirchenbauer et al. (2023a) (wv1)
|
19 |
-
were the first to present operational watermarking models for LLMs, but their initial proposal
|
20 |
-
faced criticism. Sadasivan et al. (2023) shared
|
21 |
-
their initial studies suggesting that paraphrasing
|
22 |
-
can efficiently eliminate watermarks. In a subsequent paper (Kirchenbauer et al., 2023b) (wv2),
|
23 |
-
the authors put forth evidently more resilient watermarking techniques, asserting that paraphrasing
|
24 |
-
does not significantly disrupt watermark signals
|
25 |
-
in this iteration of their research. By conducting
|
26 |
-
extensive experiments (detailed in Section 3), our
|
27 |
-
study provides a thorough investigation of the dewatermarking techniques wv1 and wv2,
|
28 |
-
demonstrating that the watermarked texts generated by both
|
29 |
-
methods can be circumvented, albeit with a slight
|
30 |
-
decrease in de-watermarking accuracy observed
|
31 |
-
with wv2. These results further strengthen our contention that text watermarking is fragile and lacks
|
32 |
-
reliability for real-life applications.""")
|
33 |
-
|
34 |
-
st.write("You can add more text or components here.")
|
35 |
|
36 |
-
# Add text to the right column (60% area)
|
37 |
-
with col2:
|
38 |
-
|
39 |
-
|
40 |
-
|
|
|
3 |
|
4 |
st.title("AI Detectability Index (ADI)")
|
5 |
|
6 |
+
#st.write("As new LLMs continue to emerge at an accelerated pace, the usability of prevailing AGTD techniques might not endure indefinitely. To align with the ever-changing landscape of LLMs, we introduce the AI Detectability Index (ADI), which identifies the discernable range for LLMs based on SoTA AGTD techniques. The hypothesis behind this proposal is that both LLMs and AGTD techniques' SoTA benchmarks can be regularly updated to adapt to the evolving landscape. Additionally, ADI serves as a litmus test to gauge whether contemporary LLMs have surpassed the ADI benchmark and are thereby rendering themselves impervious to detection, or whether new methods for AI-generated text detection will require the ADI standard to be reset and re-calibrated.")
|
7 |
|
8 |
+
# Create a container for the box
|
9 |
+
box = st.container()
|
10 |
|
11 |
+
# Create two columns inside the box
|
12 |
+
with box:
|
13 |
+
col1, col2 = st.columns([0.4, 0.6])
|
14 |
|
15 |
+
# Add text to the left column (40% area)
|
16 |
+
with col1:
|
17 |
+
st.write("Watermarking: Watermarking AI-generated text, first proposed by Wiggers (2022), entails the incorporation of an imperceptible signal to establish the authorship of a specific text with a high degree of certainty. This approach is analogous to encryption and decryption. Kirchenbauer et al. (2023a) (wv1) were the first to present operational watermarking models for LLMs, but their initial proposal faced criticism. Sadasivan et al. (2023) shared their initial studies suggesting that paraphrasing can efficiently eliminate watermarks. In a subsequent paper (Kirchenbauer et al., 2023b) (wv2), the authors put forth evidently more resilient watermarking techniques, asserting that paraphrasing does not significantly disrupt watermark signals in this iteration of their research.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 |
|
19 |
+
# Add text to the right column (60% area)
|
20 |
+
with col2:
|
21 |
+
st.write("By conducting extensive experiments (detailed in Section 3), our study provides a thorough investigation of the de-watermarking techniques wv1 and wv2, demonstrating that the watermarked texts generated by both methods can be circumvented, albeit with a slight decrease in de-watermarking accuracy observed with wv2. These results further strengthen our contention that text watermarking is fragile and lacks reliability for real-life applications.")
|
22 |
+
st.write("You can add more text or components here.")
|
|