5 ms·

Yep https://www.pangram.com/history/d3fd8f73-af8a-4cdb-968e-7346b04ded7e?ucc=gcJNTeQdxsV https://www.pangram.com/history/d3fd8f73-af8a-4cdb-968e-7346...

• drob518 3mo ago
  Oops… gotta say that I agree with the general message of the article, though.
  • computerphage 3mo ago
    Why do you agree?
    • drob518 3mo ago
      Because I think that a world that is increasingly isolated by technology and divided by ideology is craving authentic personal interaction with real humans. And I think that’s something AI will not be able to duplicate because it requires real human beings.
• kangalioo 3mo ago
  How does Pangram detect this? How do we know this is any more reliable than just asking any HN user to judge a text for AI signs, i.e. how is this more authoritative than the comments you're responding to?
  • raincole 3mo ago
    > How do we know this We don't. Pangram is HN's astrology. It has 99.99% accuracy (according to Pangram.)
    • computerphage 3mo ago
      They claim it has a very low false-positive rate, which is meaningfully more nuanced than "accuracy". "Detect AI-generated content with 99.98% accuracy." -pangram themselves
    • shantnutiwari 3mo ago
      you are being downvoted but yeah, all these ai detection tools are astrology. Fancy sciency looking, but still crap
      • raincole 3mo ago
        The downvotes are understandable. People really wish there is a reliable way to detect AI-gened content. If there is such a tool thew Show HN post will break the record of the post score. But there isn't and won't be such a tool. As a fallback people defend Pangram etc. Posting Pangram scores in comments is fundamentally no difference than posting ChatGPT responses in comments, and it's quite hilarious that the former is normalized on HN.
  • computerphage 3mo ago
    https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works