Ok? I regularly test the one I use to get a sense of accuracy, and especially with a few pages worth of text to work with I do take it seriously. You’re more than welcome not to.
It's trivial to have an ai break them especially once you know what those models measure
Pangram is reliable.
It would be easy for them to use AI for ideas and then write the article themselves though.
Turns out if you’re good at technical writing you’re classified at 100% AI
That would be unlikely unless you're a single pass transformer model.
Pangram is tuned to err on the side of human written if not sure. AI written is much stronger signal than human written.
That's not consistent with Charlie Finch' findings.
Nope, they're all universally terrible
Pangram is at least on some text very unreliable. From the story a while back about the mother at the ball game: when she wrote a medium or substack essay about it, various people in that thread (including myself) used pangram on the essay, and came back all over the place. 100% (both ways!), 20-something, 60-something, etc. It was eye-opening about how to take claims that something is AI-written or human-written.
I suppose it is also possible it was written by a human who wasn't very familiar with magnetism based on what claude told them.
Or they could be misinformed in any number of other ways. I’m not a fan of how people use ML, but I still remember that people were misinforming others long before it existed.
Sure. Although, given the topic of the piece it seems likely some of the misinformation came from AI.