Pangram says human: https://www.pangram.com/history/a69f9b74-eb46-44b9-a087-7822...
It is possible to trick pangram - they bias toward a low false positive and a higher false negative - but it is not true that it is essentially random.
> “I don't think that Pangram is bad,” Mantzarlis said. “I think actually Pangram at scale is probably a pretty solid tool. That said, I am extremely worried about it being used in individual cases.”
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/human-wrote-...
Using it for an individual article to fully determine if its AI or not is "impossible" because you're not even using the tool properly.
No it literally does not apply is the point of the article. Please read what it is about and what it says instead of asking for spoon-feeding.
> but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read
Again, your instinct is not something that matters to anyone other than you. But you are presenting Pangram as fact and doing on a moral crusade (I WILL NOT READ ANYTHING PANGRAM SAYS AS AI). You can also have an instinct that "THIS IS WRONG" and go on crusade but you will naturally understand your foundation is not solid at all.
Lastly, if your instincts serve you well why are you outsourcing yourself to another instinct? Is it for yourself or to say to others "LOOK AI CONTENT LOOK AI CONTENT!!!"? Is that purely to serve your interests of filtering what you read or are you using it in the wrong way here?
Also, I'm not presenting Pangram as anything, much less said what you just claimed I said. You might be mistaking who you're talking to in this thread, either way you clearly aren't debating in good faith.
It’s trivially defeated though, and anything with a false positive rate shouldn’t be used by any serious institution on a decision making basis. For general stats, sure. For trying to punish and individual, no thank you.
---
Experience smart transcription and advanced dictation
In addition to the Gemini API in the Google AI Studio and Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, 3.5 Transcribe goes further than standard speech-to-text to make working across Google feel more natural and intuitive. By bringing context-aware understanding directly into everyday surfaces like Gboard, Antigravity, the Gemini app, and Chrome, it captures nuances, intent, and inline edits with ease.
On Gboard on Android, through the new Rambler feature, 3.5 Transcribe transforms spoken thoughts into well-formatted text, filtering out filler words. You can also use your voice to make edits, correct misspellings, and change the writing style.
On Google Antigravity, 3.5 Transcribe pairs screen context and chat history, with your permission, to ensure pinpoint transcription accuracy across file names, agent thoughts, and active documents.
In Google AI Studio, you can access 3.5 Transcribe in Build mode to vibe code apps with your voice on the fly.
In the Gemini app on macOS, 3.5 Transcribe not only transcribes your free natural speech into clean formatted text, but also enables voice commands that can pair seamlessly with screen context to power complex workflows. By calling on other Gemini models in the background to handle the heavy lifting, the model makes it effortless to summarize local files, repurpose text across apps, or generate images right at your cursor—using just your voice.
Coming soon to Chrome, you’ll be able to talk to type in any web field — making it effortless to dictate replies, draft posts, or prompt Gemini in Chrome more naturally and easily with your voice.
I'm open to the idea of different norms for citing AI detectors, but someone needs to propose what they should be and they need to make sense.