There is a fallacy in your reasoning as you discount one side's effort and focus on the others.
>If you get your detector working well enough today, next week is another story.
Yes, you need to do some work to be able to catch up. And you have no guarantee you'll succeed.
> the generator was trained explicitly to fool a detector
Here again you have some work to do to fool the detector, and you have no guarantee of success either each time the detector gets smarter.
Moreover, the generator wasn't trained explicitly to fool a detector but to fool humans. On the other side, the detector was trained explicitly to unmask the generator.
> the generator wasn't trained explicitly to fool a detector but to fool humans.
Yes, but “next week”’s one will be trained to fool humans AND this week’s Grover - which is still likely to be easy.
Next week’s Grover will Be harder to get right against this model. But will likely be built.
The faker model of two weeks from now will be harder to build (against the updated week Grover), and so on.
There is no fallacy here. An attacker usually has easier time than a defender, because the defender must respond to every attack whereas an attacker can vary and pick every detail of their attack.
>If you get your detector working well enough today, next week is another story.
Yes, you need to do some work to be able to catch up. And you have no guarantee you'll succeed.
> the generator was trained explicitly to fool a detector
Here again you have some work to do to fool the detector, and you have no guarantee of success either each time the detector gets smarter.
Moreover, the generator wasn't trained explicitly to fool a detector but to fool humans. On the other side, the detector was trained explicitly to unmask the generator.