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.
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