How will Upwork address the flood of ChatGPT proposals?

[#1]

I posted two unrelated jobs today (US only, for what's it worth) and received of a flood of identical proposals that follow the same, obviously AI-generated format. Two are below, but there were many more. I remember a forum post saying that ChatGPT proposals were verboten, but it's prevalent and done openly with impunity. I asked one why he didn't simply submit a normal proposal and he said: "I am using chatGPT to help me respond better. I am not very good at explaining details but if you won’t pick me that’s fine. Have a nice day."

That response shows me that, assuming Upwork is legitimately forbidding ChatGPT in proposals and content, there needs to be a better messaging mechanism if these guys don't know they're violating the Terms. 

As a small-time client, it's annoying to pick through ChatGPT proposals to find the real ones. But more importantly for me as a freelancer, it's giving professional clients a poor experience that's going to make them avoid the platform. 

**edited for Community Guidelines**

  

[#2]

I think I've had Zoom calls with three Upwork clients before they hired me...in nearly 7 years.

[#3]

You can try flagging these proposals, and maybe if Upwork receives a flood of complaints from clients, they'll take it more seriously and ban these people.

[#4]

That's about all I can do, and have been.

[#5]

Please let us know if you hear anything from Upwork or if you notice any impact from doing this.

[#6]

Maybe Upwork could include a tool like ZeroGPT that can detect the amount of AI generated content in a proposal. That'll make the clients skip through the ones that have high AI generated content  🙂 

[#7]

Thanks to you i learned something new today!

[#8]

You're welcome Alper 🙂 

[#9]

Unfortunately, at the moment, those tools are horribly inaccurate.

[#10]

Agree Tiffany, let's hope these tools will improve in the future. Here's a preview of Turnitin’s AI detection tool - 

**Edited for Community Guidelines**

[#11]

When there really aren't any unique clauses left in the English language (or most major languages, for that matter) unless a new word gets added to the language, I don't see how these tools won't flag most work as somehow plagiarized once their dataset reaches critical mass.

Less than 5 years ago, my father wrote a grad school essay for cyber-security that was flagged by software as plagiarizing 5 different textbooks. The professor was going to report him for academic dishonesty until he saw my father's job description (Raytheon, IT dept) and realized that he wrote that essay based entirely on his niche work experience. The conundrum? There are only so many ways to describe a topic, especially when the description is instructional.

[#12]

There is a very simple fix for the "conundrum." Cite your sources.

[#13]

When the only source is the experience of the person writing, that's not a possibility.

[#14]

Citing sources doesn't seem to appease this type of tools. I've seen many freelancers flagged by Copyscape for a direct, attributed quote.

[#15]

I use Upwork quite a bit as a "paid StackOverflow". I post concise questions that an expert can easily answer; and I pay for their expertise.

The thing that is most frustrating with ChatGPT is the plethora of situations where:

1. freelancer is not competent to solve task

2. freelancer feeds prompt into ChatGPT

3. freelancer doesn't test the ChatGPT 'solution', doesn't realize the solution is broken, and has no idea how to fix the solution

4. freelancer sends me the ChatGPT 'solution'

5. the solution uses the right keywords / libraries, so it sounds plausible on a superficial glance

6. freelancer disappears the moment I drill down on problems with the 'solution'

The issue here is that there is zero downside for the freelancer to spam untested/incorrect ChatGPT 'solutions'

[#16]

If you pay them and leave poor feedback explaining the problem, that will hit their JSS (assuming they aren't Top Rated (Plus) with an available feedback removal perk).

[#17]

Absurdly short-sighted because it assumes clients:

1. Will pay to be Upwork police by leaving feedback for freelancers violating the letter and spirit of Upwork's direct communication on the matter.

2. Will try again on the platform and post another job with the known potential of wasting more time and money on fraudulent freelancers.

You absolutely cannot, and should not, expect clients to do either. "Just pay and tank his JSS bro" is not a viable solution to a problem that could lead to an exodus of quality clients and affect my bottom line.

[#18]

It is an established psychological fact that people will hurt themselves to see another person hurt more, if they are angry at that person. Multiple studies have demonstrated this.

But that's not the point. The point is, TongKe believed that there is no consequence for freelancers who lie by submitting AI-generated answers - which is not true. There are consequences, so long as the Client leaves feedback. Even if the FL uses their Top Rated (Plus) feedback removal perk, that is still a consequence, because now they must wait 3 months minimum before they can use it again.

[#19]

No. The defrauded client will dispute and win arbitration in a heartbeat. Then they'll be off Upwork forever, punishing the rest of Upwork's legitimate contractors as that revenue stream is lost forever. I can't fathom why you're so enthusiastic about being pedantically correct over the most minor of points while completely missing the forest for the trees. But whatever floats your boat

[#20]

I believe that it would be very unwise for any client to think that they can accomplish anything through dispute or arbitration if it turns out that a freelancer they hired used ChatGPT or similar AI tools.

Every client should proactively accept this:
"I am not getting money back."

To be cliear: If I ask a freelancer to do something, and the freelancer uses ChatGPT, and I found out that the results are unsable, I AM NOT GETTING MONEY BACK.

Upwork is not going to look at my "proof" of ChatGPT use and give me money.

That is not how it works.

If a client is worried about unusable work produced by ChatGPT, the client needs to evaluate work that freelancers submit.

Upwork is NOT going to evaluate a freelancer's work.

Upwork has no way to physically block a freelancer from submitted ChatGPT work, regardless of what its policies state.

Upwork is not going to give clients money if they discover any work they received was generated by ChatGPT.

[#21]

You misunderstand my core point. I don't care about ChatGPT-generated work; I'm discussing its use in proposals as a mechanism enabling fraud. I'd urge you to consider the Terms of Service, the violation of which I believe is a valid point in the client's favor during arbitration. Specifically:

"On Upwork, you can’t do anything that’s dishonest or meant to fool others.

You can’t misrepresent yourself, your experience, skills or professional qualifications, or that of others. This includes:

• lying about your experience, skills or professional qualifications"

One of the example proposals I posted (deleted by UW) said the applicant had five years of journalism experience and an advanced degree; the other said he owned a soundproof recording studio with state-of-the-art, professional recording equipment. I believe that falls firmly within the above-referenced ToS mandate as neither is true and one admitted as much when I confronted him about the proposal's origination. 

[#22]

re: "I'd urge you to consider the Terms of Service, the violation of which I believe is a valid point in the client's favor during arbitration."

Planning to go to arbitration is a form of refund thinking.

Refund thinking hurts clients.

One of the key ways that clients can save time and money is to proactively plan to NEVER go to arbitration.

Any client who thinks that arbitration is a possibility for them if things go wrong is making a mistake. It's a huge gamble.

Here is what is a SURE THING:
Monitor each freelancer's work. Especially early on.

If a client doesn't love their work, then fire the freelancer immediately.

No serious client would let an underperforming freelancer continue to bill the client with the thought that if it will be possible to get money back in the future through arbitration.

[#23]

When you fire a freelancer, THERE IS NOTHING THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT.

There is no appeal. There is no process. There is no judge. There is no evaluation of their side.

They're gone. They're done. That's it.

Arbitration means spending time gathering evidence, collecting documentation, presenting a case, and then awaiting the decision of a stranger.  Who may or may not decide in your favor.

No Upwork client should want to get involved with that. Not when all you need to do is click a button to FIRE a freelancer.

[#24]

Another key to my success as a client is that I write VERY GOOD JOB DESCRIPTIONS.

My job descriptions are succinct, but they very clearly identify what I'm looking for.

So freelancers mostly only apply to my jobs if they have the specific skills or experience I need.

I often hire the first person who applies and get a freelancer who is fantastic for the job and get the project completed without any difficulties.

[#25]

So, as a client what do you notice in a freelancer? 

[#26]

> Then they'll be off Upwork forever, punishing the rest of Upwork's legitimate contractors as that revenue stream is lost forever.

^-- This, I think, is the key point that everyone is missing (and choosing to argue over minor details instead). The overall effect of ChatGPT-incorrect-solution-spam is that (1) it wastes Client's time, (2) Clients get pissed off, and (3) Clients leave.