I enjoyed the piece. Yet, what I don't understand is the author's endorsement of Pangram ... I don't like that without interacting with authors they just label

I enjoyed the piece. Yet, what I don't understand is the author's endorsement of Pangram ... I don't like that without interacting with authors they just labeled texts (articles, novels etc.) as AI generated (they got a lot of publicity with it). Yet, given that the work is probabilistic and there's never 100 %, I find that irresponsible. I would have expected that they would have had at least the decency to tell the authors before they published their "accusations" publicly. Also, there are relatively easy ways to prevent being recognized and I assume as now the use of LLMs changes our way of writing and speaking, it will get harder and harder for these detection tools. We will see more false positives (as for the future there will be no text 100 % authored by humans to train on). https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hrpQxfYvF6CBGWfJX/pangram-ai-detection-software-can-be-evaded https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hrpQxfYvF6CBGWfJX/pangram-ai... As English is my second language, I find the help of an LLM in editing text very useful. Yet, I agree with others that I don't want to read completely LLM generated texts.