In the case of GPT2, or any general purpose language transformer, where the purpose is to just mimic human writing, I'm certain there are statistical solutions to find this type of text.
But if the text was created with (currently mythical) General AI, the text itself should be evaluated in terms of whether or not it is valuable. If it's valuable research, it doesn't matter if a person did the research or AI, again, assuming it was produced by a mind, not just a language transformer like these examples.
Thank you for you comment @inertia, that's really interesting attitude.
Well, I think that this "statistical" kind of AI also does its own research, which is not very far away from what we usually do - we are also some kind of neural network which usually creates its opinion basing on what others say or write. At the current level maybe it is closer to just transforming text of other people, but I think that as this concept evolves (not necessarily to the level of "mythical" General AI) it will be able to generate quality publication and present an unique opinion.
As long as you admit that particular text is machine-generated, I see nothing wrong in publishing and reading such text.
Yes. I think that's important. It's good to know the background of the author. If the author is reluctant to discuss their background, then they must be worried about their safety. For the time being, we can assume it's political pressure. But some day in the not too distant future, we will have to consider that an anonymous, unverified author might be on the wrong side of politics, is AI, or both.
That's right, unfortunately.
That's one of the reason's I'm publishing my autobiography online, daily, all over the place.