Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 177 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 44 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 29 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 32 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 119 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 202 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 432 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 36 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question (2305.06424v4)

Published 10 May 2023 in cs.CL

Abstract: LLMs like GPT-4 have recently demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. However, there is a concern that they can be misused for malicious purposes, such as fraud or denial-of-service attacks. Therefore, it is crucial to develop methods for detecting whether the party involved in a conversation is a bot or a human. In this paper, we propose a framework named FLAIR, Finding LLM Authenticity via a Single Inquiry and Response, to detect conversational bots in an online manner. Specifically, we target a single question scenario that can effectively differentiate human users from bots. The questions are divided into two categories: those that are easy for humans but difficult for bots (e.g., counting, substitution, searching, and ASCII art reasoning), and those that are easy for bots but difficult for humans (e.g., memorization and computation). Our approach shows different strengths of these questions in their effectiveness, providing a new way for online service providers to protect themselves against nefarious activities. Our code and question set are available at https://github.com/hongwang600/FLAIR.

Citations (25)

Summary

  • The paper proposes a novel framework that differentiates human users from ChatGPT bots by leveraging a single strategically crafted inquiry.
  • The methodology segments tasks into those that favor human contextual reasoning, such as symbolic manipulation, and those where bots excel in memorization and computation.
  • Experimental results reveal near-perfect human performance on non-computational tasks and near-absolute bot accuracy on data-intensive tasks, emphasizing its practical security implications.

Overview of "Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question"

The paper "Bot or Human? Detecting ChatGPT Imposters with A Single Question," authored by Hong Wang, Xuan Luo, Weizhi Wang, and Xifeng Yan, presents a novel framework for distinguishing between human users and conversational bots. Notably, the paper focuses on LLMs such as GPT-4, emphasizing the necessity for robust methods to prevent their misuse in malicious activities, including fraud and spamming.

Framework and Methodology

The core proposal of the paper is the framework Finding LLM Authenticity via a Single Inquiry and Response. This approach capitalizes on strategically designed questions intended to exploit the differential capabilities between humans and LLMs. Questions are categorized into those that challenge the model's language generation aspects and those requiring computational strength preferred by LLMs.

  1. Categories Favoring Humans:
    • Symbolic Manipulation and Randomness: Questions involving tasks such as counting and substitution, which can trip up LLMs due to limitations in maintaining contextual consistency and executing precise operations without scripting support.
    • Graphical Understanding: Utilizing ASCII art reasoning, where bots struggle to interpret and respond correctly due to the embedded complexity in visual patterns required by ASCII conversion.
  2. Categories Favoring LLMs:
    • Memorization: Tasks that solicit large lists of specific data (e.g., capitals of countries), which are memorization-intensive for humans but within the effortless recall capacity of LLMs.
    • Complex Computation: Mathematical problems requiring calculations that are straightforward for LLMs enhanced by computational capabilities, yet challenging without computational aids for humans.

Numerical Results

The experiments conducted demonstrate stark contrasts in the capabilities of humans and bots across different task categories. Human participants achieved near-perfect accuracy on non-computational challenges, supporting the notion of inherent weaknesses in LLMs when faced with these tasks. Conversely, LLMs like GPT-3, GPT-3.5, and GPT-4 showed close to 100% accuracy in memorization and computation tasks, underlying their proficiency in leveraging pre-trained data.

Implications

The paper indicates significant implications for online security and AI-human interaction. Practically, this methodology could serve to shield online services from attacks orchestrated by sophisticated bots masquerading as human users, thereby maintaining the integrity of digital interactions. From a theoretical perspective, this paper underscores the nuanced limitations of current LLMs and highlights potential research avenues in bridging these deficiencies, focusing on better contextual understanding and interpretation within abstract tasks.

Future Directions

Building on this framework, future research can explore integrating multi-modal approaches that might include combining audio-visual elements with text to create more robust security layers. There is also the prospect of further refining AI training protocols or datasets to improve reasoning capabilities without reliance on computational backends, moving towards LLMs exhibiting more human-like adaptability and problem-solving skills.

Overall, this paper provides a comprehensive examination of a pertinent and evolving challenge in the AI field, contributing valuable insights on discerning LLM-generated content in real-time applications with both practical and foundational ramifications.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Lightbulb Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Github Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

GitHub

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 82 tweets and received 65 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper: