8 ms·

No, that's not correct for any reasonable definition of "impossible." Look up pangram's accuracy ratings. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. LLMs in fact l

No, that's not correct for any reasonable definition of "impossible." Look up pangram's accuracy ratings. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. LLMs in fact leave very distinguishing traces of their logit distributions in the text they write. It's one of the reasons why it's so easy for humans to also smell them. 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.

altmanaltman 20d ago
> In preliminary testing, Mantzarlis found Pangram was more likely to misclassify AI-generated text as human-authored when it rhymed, repeated itself, and when it used archaic language. He then built an adversarial set of 588 AI-generated text samples tailored to these weaknesses. When he used Pangram to evaluate them, the tool falsely labelled AI text as human 86% of the time. > “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-believe-me 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.
- debugnik 20d ago
  Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. Yeah there's a chance it's wrong, and they'll need to catch up to new models, but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read; at least Pangram's accuracy can be measured.
  - altmanaltman 20d ago
    > Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. 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?
    - debugnik 20d ago
      The text you linked simply says that for individual analysis instead of bulk one, there will be false positives. I already acknowledged that, and I still need some filter anyway whether you want me to have one or not. Mistaking your blog posts for an AI under a fairly low false positive rate is a sacrifice I'm willing to make; I'm not grading college students 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.
phoghed 20d ago
What’s impossible is what a normie would understand that it does based on their marketing and home page. 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.

altmanaltman 20d ago

> In preliminary testing, Mantzarlis found Pangram was more likely to misclassify AI-generated text as human-authored when it rhymed, repeated itself, and when it used archaic language. He then built an adversarial set of 588 AI-generated text samples tailored to these weaknesses. When he used Pangram to evaluate them, the tool falsely labelled AI text as human 86% of the time. > “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-believe-me 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.

debugnik 20d ago
Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. Yeah there's a chance it's wrong, and they'll need to catch up to new models, but my instinct can be wrong too and I don't stop using it to filter what I read; at least Pangram's accuracy can be measured.
- altmanaltman 20d ago
  > Why? Does TFA rhyme, repeat itself, use archaic language or otherwise looks adversarial? It doesn't, so we can assume Pangram's usual false positive/negative rates apply. 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?
  - debugnik 20d ago
    The text you linked simply says that for individual analysis instead of bulk one, there will be false positives. I already acknowledged that, and I still need some filter anyway whether you want me to have one or not. Mistaking your blog posts for an AI under a fairly low false positive rate is a sacrifice I'm willing to make; I'm not grading college students 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.

phoghed 20d ago

What’s impossible is what a normie would understand that it does based on their marketing and home page. 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.