Categoria: ciencia AI IA prog tecnologico ciber informatica robotica

  • o caos da saúde à SATA

    Views: 0

    Mariana Matos is feeling irritated.

    Ao contrário do senhor Presidente do Governo, eu acho que as pessoas têm direito à sua opinião livre, porque – embora possa custar-lhe – vivemos em democracia. Vai daí este post não é uma encomenda. É a realidade! Vou hoje à Terceira fazer uma ecografia numa clínica privada. Vou porque posso, é verdade, mas não deixo de pensar em quem não vai, porque não pode. Não pode pagar a passagem, apesar da famosa tarifa Açores, nem pode pagar a consulta e a ecografia! Não é encomenda, é verdade, verdadinha. No hospital privado de São Miguel, só podiam fazer em junho de 2025, nas clínicas privadas que a fazem (a ecografia) também. Comprei a passagem há um mês, marquei a consulta e o exame e vou ver se vou. Não é urgente, já podia ter tratado disso, mas não tratei. O avião estava marcado para as 14h50. Já está atrasado para as 15h30, devido a “problemas técnicos”; a consulta é às 18h30, Angra. Veremos se os problemas técnicos se resolvem… entretanto, enquanto escrevo este post, no balcão de vendas da SATA, duas meninas, tentam atender dezenas de pessoas, que aqui estão, porque as lojas foram fechadas pelo tal “senhor que nasceu praticamente dentro do aeroporto”. Estas pessoas estarão a pagar parquímetro, eventualmente, enquanto esperam e desesperam para resolver o seu assunto… E tudo vai muito bem, não é? E o melhor que podemos fazer para alegrar o Senhor Presidente do Governo é ficar caladinhos? Tenha santa paciência. É verdade que deixei de escrever no jornal Açoriano Oriental, mas ele há tantas formas de nos expressarmos: esta é uma delas. #erasóisto
    All reactions:

    5

    Like

    Comment
    Share
  • IA E A PRAGA DO PLÁGIO QUE PODE SER COMBATIDA

    Views: 0

    newsletter banner

    ISSUE 21.36.F • 2024-09-02 • Text Alerts!Gift Certificates
    You’re reading the FREE newsletter

    Plus Membership

    You’ll immediately gain access to the longer, better version of the newsletter when you make a donation and become a Plus Member. You’ll receive all the articles shown in the table of contents below, plus access to all our premium content for the next 12 months. And you’ll have access to our complete newsletter archive!

    Upgrade to Plus membership today and enjoy all the Plus benefits!

     

    In this issue

    PUBLIC DEFENDER: Is this article plagiarism? Now you can find out.

    Additional articles in the PLUS issue

    MICROSOFT 365: Get Office Copilot now — without paying

    MICROSOFT: Microsoft’s new Master Services Agreement

    ON SECURITY: Safe remote access — from anything to anything


     

    ADVERTISEMENT
    Tech BrewTech Brew

    Join the over 400K people reading Tech Brew – the free 3x/week email delivering the latest updates on the technology changing the business world. Check it and start getting smarter today!

    Try it!

     


     

    PUBLIC DEFENDER

    Is this article plagiarism? Now you can find out.

    Brian Livingston

    By Brian LivingstonComment about this article

    An epidemic of plagiarism — outright duplication of other people’s works — is raging through chatbots and other artificial-intelligence technologies.

    One study shows that almost 60% of the outputs from some chatbots contain plagiarism. The good news? The latest detection software can be 100% accurate in separating AI-plagiarized text from original, human work.

    The problem is real. An AI detection company, Copyleaks, released in February 2024 an analysis of 1,045 outputs from OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 chatbot. Some form of plagiarized content was found in 59.7% of the bot’s writings, according to the firm.

    This study can be criticized because Copyleaks itself sells software that aims to detect AI-generated text and plagiarism. Also, OpenAI released GPT-4 in 2023, which by all accounts is an improved version of the bot.

    But finding copied or “lifted” writing in so much of a chatbot’s output represents a huge challenge for those of us who expect information we find on the Web to be factual and original.

    Let’s be clear: there is such a thing as ‘fair use’

    It’s important at this point that we make a hard-and-fast distinction between plagiarism — the copying or almost-identical paraphrasing of other people’s writing by an AI or a human writer — and fair use. The latter involves a quotation of someone else’s work while giving full credit to the original author. There is no attempt to claim that a quote from an author is an original composition by the second writer.

    Unlike patents and trademarks, which require a formal application to (and approval by) a governmental agency, copyrights are granted automatically. The author of a work gains the protection of copyright the moment a piece of writing exists in tangible form — whether or not it includes a copyright notice. (See a Copyright Laws explanation.)

    In my own articles, I quote other people’s words and reprint images they use to promote themselves. But I always identify the origin and direct my readers to the original source. This enhances the value of the original work rather than merely copying it and claiming it as my own.

    A few services rise to the top in detecting AI-written text and plagiarism

    What can we do to protect ourselves against copycat writing — and outright falsehoods — when we’re reading material that’s supposed to be true and accurate?

    People who copy others’ works wholesale — perhaps to fill a website with stolen or bogus material — currently use a variety of tricks to avoid detection. One site, Surfer Blog, offers a so-called text humanizer that supposedly adjusts AI output so it evades identification by anti-AI software.

    Fortunately for those of us who want honest and original information, the makers of plagiarism detectors seem to have finally achieved the upper hand.

    An exhaustive test suite by William H. Walters, executive director of the library of Manhattan University, finds that 3 out of 16 AI text detectors have a perfect or very-nearly perfect record of distinguishing artificially generated writing from the prose of actual humans.

    Walters’s tests included academic papers written by both ChatGPT-3.5 and the newer ChatGPT-4. This avoids the criticism that the two versions create different content. The chatbot’s writings were mixed together with papers on the same subjects that had been turned in by college undergraduates. The human-authored papers were written in 2014 or 2015, before AI programs became widely available. This ensured that AI could not have been involved in the preparation of the students’ assignments.

    The test included 126 documents of approximately 2,000 words each on topics in natural science, humanities, and social science. A human instructor would be hard-pressed to guess which papers had been written by students and which had been output by an emotionless AI.

    But the three AI-detection services that scored the best in the suite of tests were almost flawless in sorting the wheat from the chaff.

    Survey results
    Figure 1. A survey by Dr. Donald L. McCabe of more than 70,000 high school students in the United States found that 58% admitted to plagiarism, according to ICAI. Because the results are self-reported, the actual percentage may be higher.Photo by Nestor Rizhniak

    The three services that Walters’s study determined were 98% to 100% accurate at detecting AI-generated writing are:

    • Copyleaks. Free with registration: 45,000 words per day. Free with no registration: 6,250 words per day. With subscription of $108 to $168 per year: word allowances vary. Pricing
    • Turnitin. Negotiates licenses with educational institutions: Unlimited words per day. Kent State University reports that it pays Turnitin $3 per student per year, according to 97unique.
    • Originality. $60 one-time payment for 600,000 words. $15 per month for 100,000 words per month. $137 per month for 1,500,000 words per month. Pricing

    In Walters’s study, Copyleaks and Turnitin were rated as 100% accurate. Originality was rated 98% correct, but that simply means it labeled 2 out of 126 tested documents as “uncertain.” The software demonstrates a degree of accuracy that’s comparable to Copyleaks and Turnitin.

    By contrast, the other 13 AI text detectors scored poorly in Walters’s tests. Those software services were able to correctly identify text as AI-generated or original human content in only 63% to 88% of the cases. That represents a lot of false positives and false negatives if you’re judging many writing samples. (See Table 4 of the study for the complete results.)

    The services offer different pricing structures. The plans provide a varying number of words per day or month they’ll process for you. Some websites allow a limited amount of free use or a free-trial period. Unlike other services, Turnitin doesn’t market to individuals at all — instead, the company negotiates the prices of its annual contracts with universities and other large institutions.

    The services competing for your business are many and varied

    Aside from Walters’s exhaustive tests, there are several other reviews of AI-detection software on the Web. Unfortunately, it’s hard for the average reader to determine which of the many reviewers to believe.

    One of the most comprehensive comparisons of plagiarism-checker software is by Trust Radius. Its website compiles hundreds of ratings by actual users of software into lengthy articles showing ratings up to 5 stars for the best products.

    Trust Radius reviews business software
    Figure 2. Trust Radius includes thousands of business-software ratings by reviewers who are authenticated for both their computing experience and their independence from vendors. Source: Trust Radius project-management article

    Unfortunately, while it’s certainly helpful, Trust Radius’s listing of 29 plagiarism-detection programs fails to sort the products from the highest-rated to the lowest. Allow me to report to you here the software apps that garnered the best ratings:

    • 5.0 out of 5.0 stars: Noplag
    • 4.5 out of 5.0 stars: Copyleaks, Copyscape, Dupli Checker, Plagiarism Detector, PlagScan, Paper Rater, Grammarly

    In the 4.5-out-of-5.0 category, I’ve listed Grammarly last. That’s because 100% of the reviewers of the other high-rated programs said they were “happy with the feature set.” Only 96% of the reviewers said that about Grammarly, although the difference is admittedly minor.

    Notice that the Trust Radius reviewers gave high marks to Copyleaks, which came out at the top of the Walters study. But the very best Trust Radius rating went to a product called Noplag, which was not included in Walters’s tests. If you’re serious about finding the best plagiarism-detection software for your needs, you’ll need to do some research of your own into these apps’ features and costs. See the Trust Radius listing for full details.

    Speaking of costs, many of my readers can only consider new software that has a free API. If that’s the case for you, check out a listing of free plagiarism checkers posted this month in a Quora thread. The five suggested apps are:

    • Plagscan
    • Plagiarism Checker (by Small SEO Tools)
    • Quetext
    • Plagiarism Checker (by Search Engine Reports)
    • Unicheck

    The original poster points out: “Many services offer limited features in their free versions or require payment for comprehensive access. … For the most accurate and robust solutions, consider investing in a paid service if your needs are significant.”

    Confusingly, the Quora listing features some apps that were not included in Walters’s test suite or in Trust Radius’s reviews. Until this category of software sorts itself out into a few acknowledged leaders, you’ll have to choose your personal favorite from a dizzying array of different products and services.

    At least the detectors don’t think that I’m a chatbot

    To see for myself how well detectors can distinguish between AI-generated material and human creativity, I pasted a plain-text version of this column into the free submission form at Copyleaks.

    The service reports that my material shows no signs of plagiarism (a “matched text” score of 0%) and an AI content score of zero. Whew! I was starting to get worried. After all my years of being saturated in computer technology, I sometimes feel a bit robotic myself.

    Stay safe out there!

  • Trilho da Janela do Inferno já monitoriza visitantes – Açoriano Oriental

    Views: 0

    Em agosto, foram instalados dois eco contadores automáticos no trilho da Janela do Inferno. Dados atribuem uma média diária de 280 visitantes, mas há registo de 599 pessoas em apenas um dia

    Source: Trilho da Janela do Inferno já monitoriza visitantes – Açoriano Oriental

  • isto é que é viver sob a ponte

    Views: 0

    🇪🇸🤯 Imagine a building that defies architectural logic! The Los Ficus building, in Tenerife, Spain, is a stunning work that literally holds up a road. Built in the 1970s, this residential complex is one-of-a-kind as its foundations not only support multi-family housing but also a road down to the coast.
    The design is due to the need to make the most of space in a mountainous area, where the land was limited and difficult to build. Engineers devised a bold plan: to raise the …

    See more

    See original

    Rate this translation
    May be an image of road
    All reactions:

    You and 4,9 mil others

    565
    956
    Like

    Comment
    Share
  • futuros líderes em treino

    Views: 0

  • acores-outono-mais-quente.pdf

    Views: 0

    Açores Outono Mais Quente

  • LUÍS GAIVÃO “Angola e o Atlântico”

    Views: 0

    Saiu hoje este “Angola e o Atlântico”: um modesto contributo, mas genuíno e sério, para que os angolanos e os povos africanos entendam o que foi o colonialismo e como ele se retransformou, após a descolonização, em colonialidade e neocolonialismo. Neste livro, quem fala são os autores do SUL, africanos e sul-americanos, em contraste com o liberalismo eurocêntrico. Pelo futuro dos africanos.

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    Facebook

    All reactions:

    8

    3 comments
    Like

    Comment
  • crias-de-cagarro-com-microplasticos.pdf

    Views: 0

    Crias De Cagarro Com Microplásticos

    Crias De Cagarro Com Microplásticos

  • automatic gate

    Views: 0

    https://www.facebook.com/reel/429346929919231

  • a falência da saúde nos açores

    Views: 0

    Ainda há quem diga que a saúde está óptima e recomenda-se!
    Que Deus nos acuda!
    May be an image of text that says "Fonte dos dados Conta da Regiao e Relatorios e Contas. Em 2020, a divida do SRS a fornecedores ascendia a 144. Em 2023, esse valor atingiu 197M. Um crescimento, em tres anos, superior a 50M de euros em valores absolutos e de aproximadamente 37% em termos percentuais. 200 SRS- Dividas a Fornecedores 13 41,4 15 37 180 Anan 日 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 19 122 129 109 127 156,1- 2019 USIS USISeCOA COA 2020 13 2021 Ho Hospitais tais 15 2022 122 19 129 37 109 2023 41,4 156,1 127 Hospitais USIS O"
    All reactions:

    4

    2
    Like

    Comment
    View more comments
    Sonia Borges de Sousa

    Roubilhado. Vamos ver o que dizem os especialistas
    • Like

    • Reply
    a falencia da saúde nos açores