The increasing fluency of advanced language models,such as GPT-3.5,GPT-4,and the recently introduced DeepSeek,challenges the ability to distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated academic writing.This situati...The increasing fluency of advanced language models,such as GPT-3.5,GPT-4,and the recently introduced DeepSeek,challenges the ability to distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated academic writing.This situation is raising significant concerns regarding the integrity and authenticity of academic work.In light of the above,the current research evaluates the effectiveness of Bidirectional Long Short-TermMemory(BiLSTM)networks enhanced with pre-trained GloVe(Global Vectors for Word Representation)embeddings to detect AIgenerated scientific Abstracts drawn from the AI-GA(Artificial Intelligence Generated Abstracts)dataset.Two core BiLSTM variants were assessed:a single-layer approach and a dual-layer design,each tested under static or adaptive embeddings.The single-layer model achieved nearly 97%accuracy with trainable GloVe,occasionally surpassing the deeper model.Despite these gains,neither configuration fully matched the 98.7%benchmark set by an earlier LSTMWord2Vec pipeline.Some runs were over-fitted when embeddings were fine-tuned,whereas static embeddings offered a slightly lower yet stable accuracy of around 96%.This lingering gap reinforces a key ethical and procedural concern:relying solely on automated tools,such as Turnitin’s AI-detection features,to penalize individuals’risks and unjust outcomes.Misclassifications,whether legitimate work is misread as AI-generated or engineered text,evade detection,demonstrating that these classifiers should not stand as the sole arbiters of authenticity.Amore comprehensive approach is warranted,one which weaves model outputs into a systematic process supported by expert judgment and institutional guidelines designed to protect originality.展开更多
文摘The increasing fluency of advanced language models,such as GPT-3.5,GPT-4,and the recently introduced DeepSeek,challenges the ability to distinguish between human-authored and AI-generated academic writing.This situation is raising significant concerns regarding the integrity and authenticity of academic work.In light of the above,the current research evaluates the effectiveness of Bidirectional Long Short-TermMemory(BiLSTM)networks enhanced with pre-trained GloVe(Global Vectors for Word Representation)embeddings to detect AIgenerated scientific Abstracts drawn from the AI-GA(Artificial Intelligence Generated Abstracts)dataset.Two core BiLSTM variants were assessed:a single-layer approach and a dual-layer design,each tested under static or adaptive embeddings.The single-layer model achieved nearly 97%accuracy with trainable GloVe,occasionally surpassing the deeper model.Despite these gains,neither configuration fully matched the 98.7%benchmark set by an earlier LSTMWord2Vec pipeline.Some runs were over-fitted when embeddings were fine-tuned,whereas static embeddings offered a slightly lower yet stable accuracy of around 96%.This lingering gap reinforces a key ethical and procedural concern:relying solely on automated tools,such as Turnitin’s AI-detection features,to penalize individuals’risks and unjust outcomes.Misclassifications,whether legitimate work is misread as AI-generated or engineered text,evade detection,demonstrating that these classifiers should not stand as the sole arbiters of authenticity.Amore comprehensive approach is warranted,one which weaves model outputs into a systematic process supported by expert judgment and institutional guidelines designed to protect originality.
