6 ms·
Pangram says "100% AI-generated". I trust Pangram more than I trust this author's word.
by MichaelDickens 1mo ago
Pangram says "100% AI-generated". I trust Pangram more than I trust this author's word.
- pilingual 1mo agoPaul Graham mentioned Pangram the other day. I went to the site and pasted something into the text box. The next step was to sign up. I don't trust Pangram.
- serhalp 1mo agoWell, that is a shame, in my opinion. I trust humans significantly more, and I hope that never changes.
- lolpython 1mo agoThat's idiotic, frankly.
- alansaber 1mo agoI get the market need for AI detection, but the fundamentals of it are so woo-woo that I despair
- kif 1mo agoHere's another AI detector I just built: text.indexOf("—") > -1
- bicepjai 1mo agoSo you would trust a known writers word over non deterministic software ? I read New Orleans will soon let AI handle 911 calls, Hope the AI believes the calls are from humans :)
- iainctduncan 1mo agoAre you serious? Pangram is notorios for false positives!
- no_multitudes 1mo agoCan you give some examples of Pangram false positives? Ideally ones from before 2024, or otherwise ones from notable writers who started writing before 2024.
- hunterpayne 1mo agoAll ML classifiers (and algorithms) have a non-zero false positive rate. Having an error rate is baked into every ML classifier and algorithm. And its always non-zero in practice. In fact, hitting every test in some sort of test suite is likely a sign of a less accurate classifier, not a more accurate one.
- iainctduncan 1mo agoWell no shit, but that doesn't mean you just trust them just because they say it works. The cost of a false accusation can be very high.
- rpdillon 1mo agoPangram is a complete scam. There is no durable way to detect whether something was written with AI. I've had folks say they ran pangram on my writing and it was "100% AI". Except I don't use AI to write or edit anything I post publicly.
- no_multitudes 1mo agoCan you give some examples of your writing that trigger "100% AI" on pangram? I'm very interested in studying pangram's false positives. Especially if it's something published before ~2024
- noah_buddy 1mo agoNot my article, but this is quite convincing of the brittle nature of these tools. https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-is-broken-but https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-i...
- no_multitudes 1mo agoI agree Pangram's UI is awful and often misleading. Their underlying classifier model is pretty accurate in my experience, though, at least in the sense that it has very few natural false positives. If you disagree, please send me some long-form verifiable false positives that were not explicitly written to trick Pangram. I love to learn.
- noah_buddy 1mo agoI just sent you a long article which you could not have read in the time it took you to reply. I would suggest you start there and read that article, which outlines several cases where the author was able to create contrived false positives and negatives.
- no_multitudes 1mo agoI read this article about a week ago. Did you read my reply? I am interested in natural false positives (ones not written to fool the classifier.)
- Catloafdev 1mo agoTrusting snake oil is a wild choice.
- MattyRad 1mo agoSaying "more" seems generous. I don't trust Pangram at all, and I also don't trust the author at all. Both can be trustless charletans simultaneously, and I feel this speaks volumes about the state of digital media today.
- NamlchakKhandro 1mo agooh you trust pangram. ok i now trust pangram.... lmfao.. what were you hoping to astroturf with that?
- Tiberium 1mo agoThose people should just try posting a big quote from the article to HN, and then see their comment get instantly flagged due to HN's AI detection (which might as well be Pangram) It's baffling to me how people are so dismissive of Pangram despite never using it, extrapolating their experience from GPTZero or something else.
- MetroWind 1mo agoPangram said my 100% AI generated cover letter was "57% AI assisted." And the rest was human. lmao