Actually, you can limit YT searches to before a certain date. If you type in something, add in "before:[date]"
For instance, if you want videos from before 2011 about, say, Monaco, you'd enter your search like so: Monaco before:2011
Done my good deed for the day lol
Huh, I didn't know that worked on YouTube. I've been using it liberally in Google search. Good to know, thanks!
Here's some other useful ones for Google in return, putting something in quotes will search for exactly that string of characters rather than keywords. I use it for niche games that have results get mixed up with other games.
Example:
"Stationeers" best way to run an electrolyzer
That game gets mixed up with the more popular Oxygen Not Included in searches.
There's also site:, if you put site: in your search terms, you can search a specific website. I use this to pull up Reddit results quite often. For example, imagine I want to know how to partition my hard drive, but find tech articles grating. I'd search
How to partition hard drive site:reddit.com
I also use that to filter out other video sites when searching for videos. I'd rather not find what I'm looking for than make an account to watch it on Facebook.
I knew about the site: one, but I didn't know I could search with only part of my entry in quotation marks! I thought it only worked if you wanted a specific word/sentence as the whole search. Thanks a lot, that'll make finding some old stuff I've been having trouble re-earthing loads easier!
The ones I implemented as a POC test for an educational client had a 98% success rate for detecting AI content. Unfortunately they also had an average 65% false-positive rate.
AI detection software has a long, loooong way to go. But they're already implemented everywhere sadly.
Coincidentally one of the documents we fed it was an essay on segregation that was written in 1972. The top AI detection suite reported 83% (iirc) confidence that it was AI generated...
beep boop, I am a bot and this action was performed automatically. Please [suck my balls](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ if you have any questions or concerns)
I was speaking of AI generated text. There's tools out there that change the text to remove the word pattern scheme. Or the student can just change some of the wording themselves by just adopting synonyms.
Well, if they’re at least changing some words then they’re technically just doing exactly what kids in my school did back in the day. Read text book. Need to write something about what textbook taught. Basically write verbatim what the textbook said but change some words and the order itself to not plagiarize.
Ideally all AI agents would leave some kind of pattern or marker on their output so any checker could identify whether it is AI generated and what AI did it.
I know a lot of them do it for images, like Gemini and GPT.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they do it for text. And because they're trained ON human writing, of course what they generate is going to share similarities.
I take pride in my writing. It's a weird thing to get complimented on, but I used to get random praise like "your emails are so professional!". Now it's "did you use AI to write that?" And it's like no, but Google probably used my outbox for training data.
You did it as well, but I always love leaving the end of any paragraph without a period. It started as a way to make my writing less stiff in the old days, but it works as a sign I'm not AI
I proofread after posting. So most of my comments show an edit. How many AI posts do that?
(The reason I proofread after posting is because of the number of times I lost a whole comment while editing, either due to a system issue or a fat finger.)
"They" (the relevant western ones at least) are doing that actually. The TL;DR is that SynthId for text works by influencing the chance of the next token. Roughly: in a sentence
"I […] listen to music"
there’s a certain subset of words that make sense. E.g. often, regularly, sometimes, …; the text watermarking works by slightly increasing the chance of some words, e.g. often in this case.
Now that one word won’t work as a watermark; but when text with > 100 shows that it just happens to favor the marked words, it can be used to calculate how likely a text was made by a specific LLM.
yeah, they are flawed. when I was still in high school I got accused of AI every single time I had an assignment because I could write better than what they deemed I could. :|
That's why it's good to write in something like Google Docs that has a document history showing your edits over time. If you are someone who gets thoughts out on the page then tweeks and edits until it's right it could easily show it as proof. If you're someone who just types the whole thing out quickly without need for much editing you may be screwed. And also, I'm jealous.
We were told to use them when I was doing my graduate’s degree, and then submit a screenshot of the checker saying no AI was detected. I spent a week writing a paper, put it into the checker, and was flagged as a 92% match for being AI-generated.
1.0k
u/bagel_blight041 13h ago
And wait until you hear how many “AI Checkers” are flawed.