Pharmacy automation involves the mechanical processes of handling and distributing medications. Any pharmacy task may be involved, including counting small objects (e.g., tablets, capsules); measuring and mixing powders and liquids for compounding; tracking and updating customer information in databases (e.g., personally identifiable information (PII), medical history, drug interaction risk detection); and inventory management. This article focuses on the changes that have taken place in the local, or community pharmacy since the 1960s. == History == Dispensing medications in a community pharmacy before the 1970s was a time-consuming operation. The pharmacist dispensed prescriptions in tablet or capsule form with a simple tray and spatula. Many new medications were developed by pharmaceutical manufacturers at an ever-increasing pace, and medications prices were rising steeply. A typical community pharmacist was working longer hours and often forced to hire staff to handle increased workloads which resulted in less time to focus on safety issues. These additional factors led to use of a machine to count medications. The original electronic portable digital tablet counting technology was invented in Manchester, England between 1967 and 1970 by the brothers John and Frank Kirby. I had the original idea of how the machine would work and it was my patent, but it was a joint effort getting it to work in a saleable form. It was 3 years of very hard work. I had originally studied heavy electrical engineering before changing over to Medical School and qualifying as a Medical Doctor in 1968. In fact I was Senior House (Casualty) Officer (A&E or ER) in 1970 at North Manchester General Hospital when I filed the patent. I must have been the only hospital doctor in Britain with an oscilloscope, a soldering iron and a drawing board in his room in the Doctors' Residence. The housekeepers were bemused by all the wires. Frank originally trained as a Banker but quit to take a job with a local electronics firm during the development. He died in 1987, a terrible loss. [Extract from personal communication received in March 2010 from John Kirby.] Frank and John Kirby and their associate Rodney Lester were pioneers in pharmacy automation and small-object counting technology. In 1967, the Kirbys invented a portable digital tablet counter to count tablets and capsules. With Lester they formed a limited company. In 1970, their invention was patented and put into production in Oldham, England. The tablet counter aided the pharmacy industry with time-consuming manual counting of drug prescriptions. A counting machine consistently counted medications accurately and quickly. This aspect of pharmacy automation was quickly adopted, and innovations emerged every decade to aid the pharmacy industry to deliver medications quickly, safely, and economically. Modern pharmacies have many new options to improve their workflow by using the new technology, and can choose intelligently from the many options available. === Chronology === On 1 January 1971 commercial production of the first portable digital tablet counters in the World began. John Kirby had filed U.K. Patent number GB1358378(A) on 8 September 1970 and U.S. patent number 3789194 on 9 August 1971. These early electronic counters were designed to help pharmacies replace the common (but often inaccurate) practice of counting medications by hand. In 1975, the digital technology was exported to America. In early 1980 a dedicated research, development and production facility was built in Oldham, England at a cost of £500,000. Between 1982 and 1983, two separate development facilities had been created. In America, overseen by Rodney Lester; and in England, overseen by the Kirby brothers. In 1987, Frank Kirby died. In 1989, John Kirby moved his UK facility to Devon, England. A simple to operate machine had been developed to accurately and quickly count prescription medications. Technology improvements soon resulted in a more compact model. The price of such equipment in 1980 was around £1,300. This substantial investment in new technology was a major financial consideration, but the pharmacy community considered the use of a counting machine as a superior method compared to hand-counting medications. These early devices became known as tablet counter, capsule counter, pill counter, or drug counter. The new counting technology replaced manual methods in many industries such as, vitamin and diet supplement manufacturing. Technicians needed a small, affordable device to count and bottle medications. In England and America, the 1980s and 1990s saw new the development of high-speed machines for counting and bottle filling, Like their pharmacy-based counterparts, these industrial units were designed to be fast and simple to operate, yet remain small and cost effective. In America, in the late 1990s/early 2000s a new type of tablet counter appeared. It was simple to use, compact, inexpensive, and had good counting accuracy. At the turn of the millennium technical advances allowed the design of counters with a software verification system. With an onboard computer, displaying photo images of medications to assist the pharmacist or pharmacy technician to verify that the correct medication was being dispensed. In addition, a database for storing all prescriptions that were counted on the device. Between September 2005 and May 2007, American Capital made a major financial investment in Kirby Lester, which then relocated to a larger facility to expand its research and development capabilities. This move added extra space for product research and development facility (R&D). It allowed the opportunity to develop new advanced technology products that met the pharmacy's needs for simple, accurate, and cost-effective ways to dispense prescriptions safely. Pictured here is an early American type of integrated counter and packaging device. This machine was a third generation step in the evolution of pharmacy automated devices. Later models held pre-counted containers of commonly-prescribed medications. == Global variations == In the EU member states legislation was introduced in 1998 which had a major effect on UK Pharmacy operations. It effectively prohibited the use of tablet counters for counting and dispensing bulk packaged tablets. Both usage and sales of the machines in the UK declined rapidly as a result of the introduction of blister packaging for medicines. == Current state of the industry == A tablet counter has become a standard in more than 30,000 sites in 35 countries (as of 2010) (including many non-pharmacy sites, such as manufacturing facilities that use a counting machine as a check for small items). During the 1990s through 2012, numerous new pharmacy automation products came to market. During this timeframe, counting technologies, robotics, workflow management software, and interactive voice recognition (IVR) systems for retail (both chain and independent), outpatient, government, and closed-door pharmacies (mail order and central fill) were all introduced. Additionally, the concept of scalability - of migrating from an entry-level product to the next level of automation (e.g., counting technology to robotics) - was introduced and subsequently launched a new product line in 1997. Pharmacists everywhere are making the switch to automation for its increased speed, greater accuracy, and better security. As the industry evolves and customer expectations grow, automation is becoming less of a luxury and more of a necessity. Especially for independent pharmacies, automation is now a means of keeping up with the competition of large chain pharmacies. == Technological changes and design improvements == Constant developments in technology make the dispensing of prescription medications safer, more accurate and more efficient. In America, in 2008, "next-generation" counting and verification systems were introduced. Based on the counting technology employed in preceding models, later machines included the ability to help the pharmacy operate more effectively. Equipped with a new computer interface to a pharmacy management system, with workflow and inventory software. It also included "checks and balances" to ensure the technician and pharmacist were dispensing the correct medication for each patient. This is something that is important to keep reported correctly when dealing with controlled substances like narcotics. This was a step forward to verify all 100% of prescriptions that were dispensed by pharmacy staff. In America, in 2009, further advanced counters were designed that included the ability to dispense hands-free – a feature that many operators had desired. This allowed pharmacies to automate their most commonly dispensed medications via calibrated cassettes. Thirty of a pharmacy's common medications would now be dispensed automatically. Another new model doubled that throughput via an enclosed robotic mechanism. Robo
Wetware computer
A wetware computer is an organic computer (which can also be known as an artificial organic brain or a neurocomputer) composed of organic material "wetware" such as "living" neurons. Wetware computers composed of neurons are different than conventional computers because they use biological materials, and offer the possibility of substantially more energy-efficient computing. While a wetware computer is still largely conceptual, there has been limited success with construction and prototyping, which has acted as a proof of the concept's realistic application to computing in the future. The most notable prototypes have stemmed from the research completed by biological engineer William Ditto during his time at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His work constructing a simple neurocomputer capable of basic addition from leech neurons in 1999 was a significant discovery for the concept. This research was a primary example driving interest in creating these artificially constructed, but still organic brains. == Origins and theoretical foundations == The term wetware came from cyberpunk fiction, notably through Gibson's Neuromancer, but was quickly taken up in scientific literature to explain computation by biological material. Theories of early biological computation borrowed from Alan Turing's morphogenesis model, which showed that chemical interactions could produce complex patterns without centralized control. Hopfield's associative memory networks also provided a foundation for biological information systems with fault tolerance and self-organization. == Major characteristics and processes == Biological wetware systems demonstrate dynamic reconfigurability underpinned by neuroplasticity and enable continuous learning and adaptation. Reaction-diffusion-based computing and molecular logic gates allow spatially parallel information processing unachievable in conventional systems. These systems also show fault tolerance and self-repair at the cellular and network level. The development of cerebral organoids—miniature lab-grown brains—demonstrates spontaneous learning behavior and suggests biological tissue as a viable computational substrate. == Overview == The concept of wetware is an application of specific interest to the field of computer manufacturing. Moore's law, which states that the number of transistors which can be placed on a silicon chip is doubled roughly every two years, has acted as a goal for the industry for decades, but as the size of computers continues to decrease, the ability to meet this goal has become more difficult, threatening to reach a plateau. Due to the difficulty in reducing the size of computers because of size limitations of transistors and integrated circuits, wetware provides an unconventional alternative. A wetware computer composed of neurons is an ideal concept because, unlike conventional materials which operate in binary (on/off), a neuron can shift between thousands of states, constantly altering its chemical conformation, and redirecting electrical pulses through over 200,000 channels in any of its many synaptic connections. Because of this large difference in the possible settings for any one neuron, compared to the binary limitations of conventional computers, the space limitations are far fewer. == Background == The concept of wetware is distinct and unconventional and draws slight resonance with both hardware and software from conventional computers. While hardware is understood as the physical architecture of traditional computational devices, comprising integrated circuits and supporting infrastructure, software represents the encoded architecture of storage and instructions. Wetware is a separate concept that uses the formation of organic molecules, mostly complex cellular structures (such as neurons), to create a computational device such as a computer. In wetware, the ideas of hardware and software are intertwined and interdependent. The molecular and chemical composition of the organic or biological structure would represent not only the physical structure of the wetware but also the software, being continually reprogrammed by the discrete shifts in electrical pulses and chemical concentration gradients as the molecules change their structures to communicate signals. The responsiveness of a cell, proteins, and molecules to changing conformations, both within their structures and around them, ties the idea of internal programming and external structure together in a way that is alien to the current model of conventional computer architecture. The structure of wetware represents a model where the external structure and internal programming are interdependent and unified; meaning that changes to the programming or internal communication between molecules of the device would represent a physical change in the structure. The dynamic nature of wetware borrows from the function of complex cellular structures in biological organisms. The combination of "hardware" and "software" into one dynamic, and interdependent system which uses organic molecules and complexes to create an unconventional model for computational devices is a specific example of applied biorobotics. === The cell as a model of wetware === Cells in many ways can be seen as their form of naturally occurring wetware, similar to the concept that the human brain is the preexisting model system for complex wetware. In his book Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell (2009) Dennis Bray explains his theory that cells, which are the most basic form of life, are just a highly complex computational structure, like a computer. To simplify one of his arguments a cell can be seen as a type of computer, using its structured architecture. In this architecture, much like a traditional computer, many smaller components operate in tandem to receive input, process the information, and compute an output. In an overly simplified, non-technical analysis, cellular function can be broken into the following components: Information and instructions for execution are stored as DNA in the cell, RNA acts as a source for distinctly encoded input, processed by ribosomes and other transcription factors to access and process the DNA and to output a protein. Bray's argument in favor of viewing cells and cellular structures as models of natural computational devices is important when considering the more applied theories of wetware to biorobotics. === Biorobotics === Wetware and biorobotics are closely related concepts, which both borrow from similar overall principles. A biorobotic structure can be defined as a system modeled from a preexisting organic complex or model such as cells (neurons) or more complex structures like organs (brain) or whole organisms. Unlike wetware, the concept of biorobotics is not always a system composed of organic molecules, but instead could be composed of conventional material which is designed and assembled in a structure similar or derived from a biological model. Biorobotics have many applications and are used to address the challenges of conventional computer architecture. Conceptually, designing a program, robot, or computational device after a preexisting biological model such as a cell, or even a whole organism, provides the engineer or programmer the benefits of incorporating into the structure the evolutionary advantages of the model. == Effects on users == Wetware technologies such as BCIs and neuromorphic chips offer new possibilities for user autonomy. For those with disabilities, such systems could restore motor or sensory functions and enhance quality of life. However, these technologies raise ethical questions: cognitive privacy, consent over biological data, and risk of exploitation. Without proper oversight, wetware technologies may also widen inequality, favoring those with access to cognitive enhancements. Open governance frameworks and ethical AI design grounded in neuro ethics will be essential. With the development of wetware devices, disparities in access could exacerbate social inequalities, benefiting those who have resources to enhance cognitive or physical abilities. It is necessary to create strong ethical frameworks, inclusive development practices, and open systems of governance to reduce risks and make sure that wetware advances are beneficial to all segments of society. == Applications and goals == === Basic neurocomputer composed of leech neurons === In 1999 William Ditto and his team of researchers at Georgia Institute of Technology and Emory University created a basic form of a wetware computer capable of simple addition by harnessing leech neurons. Leeches were used as a model organism due to the large size of their neuron, and the ease associated with their collection and manipulation. However, these results have never been published in a peer-reviewed journal, prompting questions about the validity of the claims. The computer was able to complete basic addition through electrical probes
History of machine translation
Machine translation is a sub-field of computational linguistics that investigates the use of software to translate text or speech from one natural language to another. In the 1950s, machine translation became a reality in research, although references to the subject can be found as early as the 17th century. The Georgetown experiment, which involved successful fully automatic translation of more than sixty Russian sentences into English in 1954, was one of the earliest recorded projects. Researchers of the Georgetown experiment asserted their belief that machine translation would be a solved problem within a few years. In the Soviet Union, similar experiments were performed shortly after. Consequently, the success of the experiment ushered in an era of significant funding for machine translation research in the United States. The achieved progress was much slower than expected; in 1966, the ALPAC report found that ten years of research had not fulfilled the expectations of the Georgetown experiment and resulted in dramatically reduced funding. Interest grew in statistical models for machine translation, which became more common and also less expensive in the 1980s as available computational power increased. Although there exists no autonomous system of "fully automatic high quality translation of unrestricted text," there are many programs now available that are capable of providing useful output within strict constraints. Several of these programs are available online, such as Google Translate and the SYSTRAN system that powers AltaVista's BabelFish (which was replaced by Microsoft Bing translator in May 2012). == The beginning == The origins of machine translation can be traced back to the work of Al-Kindi, a 9th-century Arabic cryptographer who developed techniques for systemic language translation, including cryptanalysis, frequency analysis, and probability and statistics, which are used in modern machine translation. The idea of machine translation later appeared in the 17th century. In 1629, René Descartes proposed a universal language, with equivalent ideas in different tongues sharing one symbol. In the mid-1930s the first patents for "translating machines" were applied for by Georges Artsrouni, for an automatic bilingual dictionary using punched tape. Russian Peter Troyanskii submitted a more detailed proposal that included both the bilingual dictionary and a method for dealing with grammatical roles between languages, based on the grammatical system of Esperanto. This system was separated into three stages: stage one consisted of a native-speaking editor in the source language to organize the words into their logical forms and to exercise the syntactic functions; stage two required the machine to "translate" these forms into the target language; and stage three required a native-speaking editor in the target language to normalize this output. Troyanskii's proposal remained unknown until the late 1950s, by which time computers were well-known and utilized. == The early years == The first set of proposals for computer based machine translation was presented in 1949 by Warren Weaver, a researcher at the Rockefeller Foundation, "Translation memorandum". These proposals were based on information theory, successes in code breaking during the Second World War, and theories about the universal principles underlying natural language. A few years after Weaver submitted his proposals, research began in earnest at many universities in the United States. On 7 January 1954 the Georgetown–IBM experiment was held in New York at the head office of IBM. This was the first public demonstration of a machine translation system. The demonstration was widely reported in the newspapers and garnered public interest. The system itself, however, was no more than a "toy" system. It had only 250 words and translated 49 carefully selected Russian sentences into English – mainly in the field of chemistry. Nevertheless, it encouraged the idea that machine translation was imminent and stimulated the financing of the research, not only in the US but worldwide. Early systems used large bilingual dictionaries and hand-coded rules for fixing the word order in the final output which was eventually considered too restrictive in linguistic developments at the time. For example, generative linguistics and transformational grammar were exploited to improve the quality of translations. During this period operational systems were installed. The United States Air Force used a system produced by IBM and Washington University in St. Louis, while the Atomic Energy Commission and Euratom, in Italy, used a system developed at Georgetown University. While the quality of the output was poor it met many of the customers' needs, particularly in terms of speed. At the end of the 1950s, Yehoshua Bar-Hillel was asked by the US government to look into machine translation, to assess the possibility of fully automatic high-quality translation by machines. Bar-Hillel described the problem of semantic ambiguity or double-meaning, as illustrated in the following sentence: Little John was looking for his toy box. Finally he found it. The box was in the pen. The word pen may have two meanings: the first meaning, something used to write in ink with; the second meaning, a container of some kind. To a human, the meaning is obvious, but Bar-Hillel claimed that without a "universal encyclopedia" a machine would never be able to deal with this problem. At the time, this type of semantic ambiguity could only be solved by writing source texts for machine translation in a controlled language that uses a vocabulary in which each word has exactly one meaning. == The 1960s, the ALPAC report and the seventies == Research in the 1960s in both the Soviet Union and the United States concentrated mainly on the Russian–English language pair. The objects of translation were chiefly scientific and technical documents, such as articles from scientific journals. The rough translations produced were sufficient to get a basic understanding of the articles. If an article discussed a subject deemed to be confidential, it was sent to a human translator for a complete translation; if not, it was discarded. A great blow came to machine-translation research in 1966 with the publication of the ALPAC report. The report was commissioned by the US government and delivered by ALPAC, the Automatic Language Processing Advisory Committee, a group of seven scientists convened by the US government in 1964. The US government was concerned that there was a lack of progress being made despite significant expenditure. The report concluded that machine translation was more expensive, less accurate and slower than human translation, and that despite the expenditures, machine translation was not likely to reach the quality of a human translator in the near future. The report recommended, however, that tools be developed to aid translators – automatic dictionaries, for example – and that some research in computational linguistics should continue to be supported. The publication of the report had a profound impact on research into machine translation in the United States, and to a lesser extent the Soviet Union and United Kingdom. Research, at least in the US, was almost completely abandoned for over a decade. In Canada, France and Germany, however, research continued. In the US the main exceptions were the founders of SYSTRAN (Peter Toma) and Logos (Bernard Scott), who established their companies in 1968 and 1970 respectively and served the US Department of Defense. In 1970, the SYSTRAN system was installed for the United States Air Force, and subsequently by the Commission of the European Communities in 1976. The METEO System, developed at the Université de Montréal, was installed in Canada in 1977 to translate weather forecasts from English to French, and was translating close to 80,000 words per day or 30 million words per year until it was replaced by a competitor's system on 30 September 2001. While research in the 1960s concentrated on limited language pairs and input, demand in the 1970s was for low-cost systems that could translate a range of technical and commercial documents. This demand was spurred by the increase of globalisation and the demand for translation in Canada, Europe, and Japan. == The 1980s and early 1990s == By the 1980s, both the diversity and the number of installed systems for machine translation had increased. A number of systems relying on mainframe technology were in use, such as SYSTRAN, Logos, Ariane-G5, and Metal. As a result of the improved availability of microcomputers, there was a market for lower-end machine translation systems. Many companies took advantage of this in Europe, Japan, and the USA. Systems were also brought onto the market in China, Eastern Europe, Korea, and the Soviet Union. During the 1980s there was a lot of activity in MT in Japan especially. With the fifth-generation co
MyPertamina
MyPertamina is a digital financial service platform from Pertamina that integrated with the apps LinkAja. This application is used for non-cash fuel oil payments at Pertamina's public fueling stations. == History == Originally, MyPertamina were merchandise outlets of Pertamina products. It was launched on December 21, 2016, with 3 outlets in Jakarta. MyPertamina sells clothes, hats, and other products with Pertamina products brands. One month later (January 2017), Pertamina and Bank Mandiri entered into a partnership to launch the Mandiri Credit Card Pertamina Mastercard product, so that consumers can make payments when users fill up fuel at Pertamina gas stations. In August 2017, MyPertamina app and electronic card were launched through MyPertamina Loyalty program at Gaikindo Indonesia International Auto Show 2017. The card can be used on EDC machines for non-cash payments. Initial balances are in its own app, that can be top up by ATMs and online banking.
Meta AI
Meta AI is a research division of Meta (formerly Facebook) that develops artificial intelligence and augmented reality technologies. == History == Meta AI was founded in 2013 as Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR). It has workspaces in Menlo Park, London, New York City, Paris, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Tel Aviv, and Montreal as of 2025. In 2016, FAIR partnered with Google, Amazon, IBM, and Microsoft in creating the Partnership on Artificial Intelligence to Benefit People and Society. Meta AI was directed by Yann LeCun until 2018, when Jérôme Pesenti succeeded the role. Pesenti is formerly the CTO of IBM's big data group. FAIR's research includes self-supervised learning, generative adversarial networks, document classification and translation, and computer vision. FAIR released Torch deep-learning modules as well as PyTorch in 2017, an open-source machine learning framework, which was subsequently used in several deep learning technologies, such as Tesla's autopilot and Uber's Pyro. That same year, a pair of chatbots were falsely rumored to be discontinued for developing a language that was unintelligible to humans. FAIR clarified that the research had been shut down because they had accomplished their initial goal to understand how languages are generated by their models, rather than out of fear. FAIR was renamed Meta AI following the rebranding that changed Facebook, Inc. to Meta Platforms Inc. On October 1, 2025, Facebook announced "We will soon use your interactions with AI at Meta to personalize the content and ads you see". == Virtual assistant == Meta AI is also the name of the virtual assistant developed by the team, now integrated as a chatbot into Meta's social networking products. It is also available as a subscription-based stand-alone app. The virtual assistant was pre-installed on the second generation of Ray-Ban Meta smartglasses, and can incorporate inputs from the glasses' cameras after an update. It is also available on Quest 2 and newer HMDs. Since May 2024, the chatbot has summarized news from various outlets without linking directly to original articles, including in Canada, where news links are banned on its platforms. This use of news content without compensation and attribution has raised ethical and legal concerns, especially as Meta continues to reduce news visibility on its platforms. == Current research == === Natural language processing and chatbot === Natural language processing is the ability for machines to understand and generate natural language. The team is also researching unsupervised machine translation and multilingual chatbots. ==== Galactica ==== Galactica is a large language model (LLM) designed for generating scientific text. It was available for three days from 15 November 2022, before being withdrawn for generating racist and inaccurate content. ==== Llama ==== Llama is an LLM released in February 2023. As of January 2026, the most recent release is the Llama 4. === Hardware === Meta used CPUs and in-house custom chips before 2022; they switched to Nvidia GPUs since then. MTIA v1, one of their early chips, is designed for the company's content recommendation algorithms. It was fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process technology and consumed 25W, capable of 51.2 TFlops FP16. == Controversy == The French media outlet Mediapart reports that in 2022, Facebook's parent company illegally used works accumulated by the pirate site LibGen to train its artificial intelligence.
Autonomous things
Autonomous things, abbreviated AuT, or the Internet of autonomous things, abbreviated as IoAT, is an emerging term for the technological developments that are expected to bring computers into the physical environment as autonomous entities without human direction, freely moving and interacting with humans and other objects. Self-navigating drones are the first AuT technology in (limited) deployment. It is expected that the first mass-deployment of AuT technologies will be the autonomous car, generally expected to be available around 2020. Other currently expected AuT technologies include home robotics (e.g., machines that provide care for the elderly, infirm or young), and military robots (air, land or sea autonomous machines with information-collection or target-attack capabilities). AuT technologies share many common traits, which justify the common notation. They are all based on recent breakthroughs in the domains of (deep) machine learning and artificial intelligence. They all require extensive and prompt regulatory developments to specify the requirements from them and to license and manage their deployment (see the further reading below). And they all require unprecedented levels of safety (e.g., automobile safety) and security, to overcome concerns about the potential negative impact of the new technology. As an example, the autonomous car both addresses the main existing safety issues and creates new issues. It is expected to be much safer than existing vehicles, by eliminating the single most dangerous element – the driver. The US's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates 94 percent of US accidents were the result of human error and poor decision-making, including speeding and impaired driving, and the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School claims that "Some ninety percent of motor vehicle crashes are caused at least in part by human error". So while safety standards like the ISO 26262 specify the required safety, there is still a burden on the industry to demonstrate acceptable safety. While car accidents claim every year 35,000 lives in the US, and 1.25 million worldwide, some believe that even "a car that's 10 times as safe, which means 3,500 people die on the roads each year [in the US alone]" would not be accepted by the public. The acceptable level may be closer to the current figures on aviation accidents and incidents, with under a thousand worldwide deaths in most years – three orders of magnitude lower than cars. This underscores the unprecedented nature of the safety requirements that will need to be met for cars, with similar levels of safety expected for other Autonomous Things.
Artificial intelligence content detection
Artificial intelligence detection software aims to determine whether some content (text, image, video, or audio) was generated using artificial intelligence (AI). This software is often unreliable. == Accuracy issues == Many AI detection tools have been shown to be unreliable in detecting AI-generated text. In a 2023 study conducted by Weber-Wulff et al., researchers evaluated 14 detection tools including Turnitin and GPTZero and found that "all scored below 80% of accuracy and only 5 over 70%." They also found that these tools tend to have a bias for classifying texts more as human than as AI, and that accuracy of these tools worsens upon paraphrasing. === False positives === In AI content detection, a false positive is when human-written work is incorrectly flagged as AI-written. Many AI detection platforms claim to have a minimal level of false positives, with Turnitin claiming a less than 1% false positive rate. However, later research by The Washington Post produced much higher rates of 50%, though they used a smaller sample size. False positives in an academic setting frequently lead to accusations of academic misconduct, which can have serious consequences for a student's academic record. Additionally, studies have shown evidence that many AI detection models are prone to give false positives to work written by people whose first language is not English, and also to neurodivergent people. In June 2023, Janelle Shane wrote that portions of her book You Look Like a Thing and I Love You were flagged as AI-generated. === False negatives === A false negative is a failure to identify documents with AI-written text. False negatives often happen as a result of a detection software's sensitivity level or because evasive techniques were used when generating the work to make it sound more human. False negatives are less of a concern academically, since they aren't likely to lead to accusations and ramifications. Notably, Turnitin stated they have a 15% false negative rate. == Text detection == For text, this is usually done to prevent alleged plagiarism, often by detecting repetition of words as telltale signs that a text was AI-generated (including hallucinations). Detection systems may also rely on stylistic and structural regularities associated with LLM output, such as unusually consistent grammar, formulaic transitions, repeated discourse markers, and recurring rhetorical templates. Some tools are designed less to establish authorship provenance than to flag prose that resembles common LLM-generated style patterns. They are often used by teachers marking their students, usually on an ad hoc basis. Following the release of ChatGPT and similar AI text generative software, many educational establishments have issued policies against the use of AI by students. AI text detection software is also used by those assessing job applicants, as well as online search engines, hiring, online moderation and publishing. Current detectors may sometimes be unreliable and have incorrectly marked work by humans as originating from AI while failing to detect AI-generated work in other instances. MIT Technology Review said that the technology "struggled to pick up ChatGPT-generated text that had been slightly rearranged by humans and obfuscated by a paraphrasing tool". AI text detection software has also been shown to discriminate against non-native speakers of English. Two students from the University of California, Davis, were referred to the university's Office of Student Success and Judicial Affairs (OSSJA) after their professors scanned their essays with positive results; the first with an AI detector called GPTZero, and the second with an AI detector integration in Turnitin. However, following media coverage, and a thorough investigation, the students were cleared of any wrongdoing. In April 2023, Cambridge University and other members of the Russell Group of universities in the United Kingdom opted out of Turnitin's AI text detection tool, after expressing concerns it was unreliable. The University of Texas at Austin opted out of the system six months later. In May 2023, a professor at Texas A&M University–Commerce used ChatGPT to detect whether his students' content was written by it, which ChatGPT said was the case. As such, he threatened to fail the class despite ChatGPT not being able to detect AI-generated writing. No students were prevented from graduating because of the issue, and all but one student (who admitted to using the software) were exonerated from accusations of having used ChatGPT in their content. In July 2023, a paper titled "GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers" was released, reporting that GPTs discriminate against non-native English authors. The paper compared seven GPT detectors against essays from both non-native English speakers and essays from United States students. The essays from non-native English speakers had an average false positive rate of 61.3%. An article by Thomas Germain, published on Gizmodo in June 2024, reported job losses among freelance writers and journalists due to AI text detection software mistakenly classifying their work as AI-generated. In September 2024, Common Sense Media reported that generative AI detectors had a 20% false positive rate for Black students, compared to 10% of Latino students and 7% of White students. To improve the reliability of AI text detection, researchers have explored digital watermarking techniques. A 2023 paper titled "A Watermark for Large Language Models" presents a method to embed imperceptible watermarks into text generated by large language models (LLMs). This watermarking approach allows content to be flagged as AI-generated with a high level of accuracy, even when text is slightly paraphrased or modified. The technique is designed to be subtle and hard to detect for casual readers, thereby preserving readability, while providing a detectable signal for those employing specialized tools. However, while promising, watermarking faces challenges in remaining robust under adversarial transformations and ensuring compatibility across different LLMs. == Anti text detection == There is software available designed to bypass AI text detection. In practice, evasion may not require specialized bypass tools. Paraphrasing, style editing, and removal of repeated discourse markers can substantially reduce the effectiveness of detectors that rely on recognizable surface patterns. A study published in August 2023 analyzed 20 abstracts from papers published in the Eye Journal, which were then paraphrased using GPT-4.0. The AI-paraphrased abstracts were examined for plagiarism using QueText and for AI-generated content using Originality.AI. The texts were then re-processed through an adversarial software called Undetectable.ai in order to reduce the AI-detection scores. The study found that the AI detection tool, Originality.AI, identified text generated by GPT-4 with a mean accuracy of 91.3%. However, after reprocessing by Undetectable.ai, the detection accuracy of Originality.ai dropped to a mean accuracy of 27.8%. Some experts also believe that techniques like digital watermarking are ineffective because they can be removed or added to trigger false positives. "A Watermark for Large Language Models" paper by Kirchenbauer et al. (2023) also addresses potential vulnerabilities of watermarking techniques. The authors outline a range of adversarial tactics, including text insertion, deletion, and substitution attacks, that could be used to bypass watermark detection. These attacks vary in complexity, from simple paraphrasing to more sophisticated approaches involving tokenization and homoglyph alterations. The study highlights the challenge of maintaining watermark robustness against attackers who may employ automated paraphrasing tools or even specific language model replacements to alter text spans iteratively while retaining semantic similarity. Experimental results show that although such attacks can degrade watermark strength, they also come at the cost of text quality and increased computational resources. == Image, video, and audio detection == Several purported AI image detection software exist, to detect AI-generated images (for example, those originating from Midjourney or DALL-E). They are not completely reliable. Industry analyses have also noted that AI-driven image recognition systems often struggle in real-world environments, where inconsistent lighting, noise and variable visual inputs reduce detection reliability, a challenge highlighted in modern agricultural quality-control research. Others claim to identify video and audio deepfakes, but this technology is also not fully reliable yet either. Despite debate around the efficacy of watermarking, Google DeepMind is actively developing a detection software called SynthID, which works by inserting a digital watermark that is invisible to the human eye into the pixels of an image.