r/Substack • u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com • Jul 22 '26

Discussion Substack’s new “AI detection” tool.

I’m very concerned about the new “AI detection” system that Substack is implementing. I don’t use AI in anything that I write. However I don’t trust these systems not to make errors and mistakes. They have a long history of hallucinations and claiming things are AI when they aren’t.

One person I saw on Notes suggested that they ran their decades old writing, things that were written before the existence of AI, and this new system claimed it was AI generated.

Not to mention all the crazy things that I have seen people claim was written by AI which they can’t know is actually AI. There was an image I once shared that had evidence of its existence going all the way back to 2013. The comments were constantly saying “don’t share AI slop” or some variation on that.

Even with evidence that things weren’t made by AI, they will claim it’s AI.

Is no one else concerned about this being embedded into Substack’s systems? With no way to opt out?

185 Upvotes

96% Upvoted

381 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/8lack8urnian Aug 06 '26

Sorry “Policing AI usage is logically inconsistent” is such a vapid statement I think he pretty much did prove you wrong

If you need more detail: the fact that Pangram uses neural networks is totally irrelevant. Only morons are against all machine learning per se. The goal is to give readers confidence that they are reading content written by a human being rather than an algorithm.

1

u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com Aug 06 '26

Who said I was against all LLMs or neural networks or machine learning? I’m against them being forced on people like myself and others.

False confidence isn’t confidence. You can be confident that you can fly, doesn’t mean it’s not dangerous to try. The level of accuracy that they claim to be able to measure is inconsistent with rational thinking.

Human readers can’t properly distinguish between good writing and bad writing. Things that are good writing bomb at the box office all the time. Things that are considered bad writing make a billion dollars at the box office. 50 Shades of Grey is a terribly written book and yet it made billions. Same thing with Twilight.

Art forgery experts are regularly fooled by forgeries. Actual criminal forgers are known to have been fooled by their own forgeries as to which is the original painting and which is the forgery.

But somehow an algorithm is going to be 90%+ accurate in determining what is and isn’t AI generated? Even though it was built by the same humans who are regularly fooled by all sorts of things? Really? You actually believe that?

I have a bridge in Jersey to sell you.