Maybe I missed something, but isn’t it impossible to detect whether something is written by AI or not? A human on a bad day can write like AI while an AI on a good day can write like a human.
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.