New site members:
Ghrab account created 28 Dec 2023, 13:49 (71 days ago)
HierisSebas account created 28 Dec 2023, 13:39 (71 days ago)
coldposted the following article: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-6518/comments/show on 8 Feb 2024, which while allegedly co-authored, indicated clear signs of AI-generation, in several portions of the text:
Intentionally ignoring SCP-6518-1 triggers a marked increase in its aggression. This heightened aggression presents a tangible danger, as the anomaly possesses the ability to willfully engulf the subject in flames, resulting in potential loss of life. It is imperative for personnel to uphold regular verbal interactions with SCP-6518-1 to mitigate the risk of triggering its destructive capabilities. Containment procedures and clearance level have been tightened following Incident Log SCP-6518-1.1.
Conducted on August 10th, 2006, the primary objective of this interview was to extract additional information pertaining to the potential background of SCP-6518-1. Dr. Robert James, a researcher and on-site therapist, initiated a dialogue with the anomaly while meticulously documenting relevant details.
Conducted on September 21st, 2006, this experiment sought to investigate the potential repercussions on SCP-6518-1 when subjected to a lack of communication from the designated visitor.
Subsequent tests of a similar nature are now prohibited, adhering to containment protocols and emphasizing the unique response exhibited by SCP-6518-1 to prolonged isolation. Containment methods have been altered to make sure that personnel are to engage in daily conversation with SCP-6518-1.
Following the orders by research personnel present at SCP-6518, D-25896 sustained fatal injuries due to SCP-6518-1's aggression. Doctor Robert James was harmed as a result of the flames engulfing D-25896. Containment protocols are to be reinforced and no scientific personnel are allowed inside SCP-6518 during experiments to avert potential incidents. Further analysis of SCP-6518-1's background and emotional state is ongoing.
Conducted on October 28th, 2006, Dr. Clay Robin initiated a dialogue with the anomaly, searching for any information about SCP-6518's background.
compare with:
| Special Containment Procedures: SCP-6518 requires daily monitoring for a minimum of 4 hours. Access to the anomaly is restricted to personnel with a clearance level of 2 or higher. Testing authorization is granted, contingent on adherence to the protocols. |
| Dr. James: Greetings SCP-6518-1, I am Dr. Robert James. I have come to you today to delve a bit into your history. To start things easy, how long have you resided.. or rather existed in this house? |
| Dr. James: I think that will be enough for today SCP-6518-1. I thank you for your time today SCP-6518-1. I do have to take my leave since I have other business to attend to. Is there anything you'd like to tell us? |
| Dr. Robin: I'm sorry to hear that. Thank you for sharing this information with us SCP-6518-1. |
| A possible reclassification for the anomaly from safe to euclid is still under consideration. |
When addressed regarding the discrepancies, the users responded:
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16709313/scp-6518#post-6451248 (Ghrab)
I think that I already said that me and my collaborator worked a lot on this article, he edited most of my work because my English ain't extremely good but well I don't know if he used AI or not , he said that he learned British English so it would be odd if he used AI to clean my writing especially that I can confirm that his English is already well.
(Staff response)
I think that I already said that me and my collaborator worked a lot on this article
That doesn't explain the discrepancy between sections like:
| SCP-6518 requires daily monitoring for a minimum of 4 hours. Access to the anomaly is restricted to personnel with a clearance level of 2 or higher. |
and:
| Conducted on August 10th, 2006, the primary objective of this interview was to extract additional information pertaining to the potential background of SCP-6518-1. Dr. Robert James, a researcher and on-site therapist, initiated a dialogue with the anomaly while meticulously documenting relevant details. |
where the word choice, sentence structure, and level of clinical tone all differ.
he edited most of my work because my English ain't extremely good
When this is the case in a co-authorship, typically the majority of the resulting article sounds like the same writer produced it. That doesn't seem clear in this piece; furthermore, the high occurrence of unnecessary adjectives and adverbs is very typical of AI-generated text.
he said that he learned British English so it would be odd if he used AI to clean my writing
To confirm, both of you agreed to use the US spelling variants for several words, instead of the UK version, even though the author who contributed the most material/edits learned British English?
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16709313/scp-6518#post-6451807 (Ghrab)
where the word choice, sentence structure, and level of clinical tone all differ.
you literally compared 2 sentences from the procedures where one of them is very common with that introduction to the dialogues
When this is the case in a co-authorship, typically the majority of the resulting article sounds like the same writer produced it. That doesn't seem clear in this piece; furthermore, the high occurrence of unnecessary adjectives and adverbs is very typical of AI-generated text.
It isn't like I didn't contribute to the writing, and even if most of the article somehow feels like it's AI generated this isn't a strong evident. I think that you need to talk more with HierisSebas.
To confirm, both of you agreed to use the US spelling variants for several words, instead of the UK version, even though the author who contributed the most material/edits learned British English?
Correct!
Hey sorry if my you found that my tone was offensive while reading this.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-16709313/scp-6518#post-6451818 (HierisSebas)
Hi, I thought I would leave a reaction as well.
That doesn't explain the discrepancy between sections like:
I think this discrepancy came to be because I edited most of the file but didn't entirely rewrite it. Because of that, some parts are written in my style (if you'd call it a style) and some are still in my collaborator's style. The unnecessary usage of adverbs and adjectives can be attributed to me wanting to seem to write in a very "profound" manner. So I presume I changed it up a bit when working on the article over the days that followed. I must've missed this when proofreading as well.
To confirm, both of you agreed to use the US spelling variants for several words, instead of the UK version, even though the author who contributed the most material/edits learned British English?
Yes, in this case. I asked Ghrab through Reddit which one they'd prefer.
This was on the 17th of February. After this, I made some changes in the sandbox we used. It also would be more logical in my opinion to use American English, since the "location" of the SCP is described to be in the US.
As a last note that might have had an impact on the result, I would like to mention I used a writing assistant app to double-check everything I wrote down and reworded sentences I wasn't happy with. That might've influenced some of the wording an structure too.
Of note, the multiple edits to the page while it was on the mainsite (currently the page is on edit #79) do not support the authors' statements; most if not all the edits made were to change coding, or to add or delete entire lines or chunks of text rather than spot-check word choice. Furthermore, there was inconsistency in the errors present in the non-AI-seeming text (lack of capitalization, numeral vs written-out number word use) compared to the AI-sounding text. This also appears to be the case for the authors' sandbox edits.
Furthermore, looking at the scpper data for the page: https://scpper.com/page/1452576484 the rating fell to -7 on 11 Feb 2024, roughly 3 days after the page creation, and from there climbed to +13 by the start of March, despite the majority of the comments being negative or neutral. This odd voting pattern was initially investigated when Ghrab PMed a staff member asking, "can you take a look at this SCP and tell me if it deserves to be featured ?" and when asked about the AI-seeming text, responded, "I don't know me and my collaborator worked on it for a long time, I wrote most of it and he helped me in the grammar and wrote a few things by himself, I ain't sure if there is AI generated text".
Given all of the above, both users had their memberships revoked for posting AI-generated content (as per Licensing, "Rewording using ai is still using ai writing"). torcs and Kufat supporting; PMs have been sent.
