Hacker News Reader

Comment by rpdillon | Hacker News Reader

Pangram is a complete scam. There is no durable way to detect whether something was written with AI. I've had folks say they ran pangram on my writing and it was "100% AI". Except I don't use AI to write or edit anything I post publicly.

View on HN

I'm sure you'd like $100 then to give the founder of pangram an essay they classify as AI that is in fact not ai.

Free money, right?

https://x.com/max_spero_/status/2085041200923394459

Can you give some examples of your writing that trigger "100% AI" on pangram? I'm very interested in studying pangram's false positives. Especially if it's something published before ~2024

Not my article, but this is quite convincing of the brittle nature of these tools.

https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-i...

I agree Pangram's UI is awful and often misleading. Their underlying classifier model is pretty accurate in my experience, though, at least in the sense that it has very few natural false positives. If you disagree, please send me some long-form verifiable false positives that were not explicitly written to trick Pangram. I love to learn.

I just sent you a long article which you could not have read in the time it took you to reply. I would suggest you start there and read that article, which outlines several cases where the author was able to create contrived false positives and negatives.

I read this article about a week ago. Did you read my reply? I am interested in natural false positives (ones not written to fool the classifier.)

Contrived false positives and negatives could (and should!) always be possible. That doesn't tell us anything about the natural false positive and negative rates, and a lot of people who have actively tried to use voice instruction to get models to consistently fool the detector without iterating against it directly have failed.

Please try https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49212788

Reply on news.ycombinator.com