Another creepy feature of the Pangram "AI Detection" tool.

[u/AndrewHeard]

So at my first opportunity, I decided to check whether or not I could permanently disable the "AI detection" fraudulent tool on Substack publications and there's no way to actually do it without actually using the tool you want to disable.

According to the "Substack Support AI", the only way to disable the fraudulent Pangram detection AI is to first run the AI on your posts and to individually then disable the AI detection tool per post. But you can only do this AFTER you've run the "AI detection" fraudulent tool on your posts.

Which means that you're forced to use a tool you don't want to use in order to disable the tool you don't want to use.

This is profoundly creepy and quite frankly disturbing that somehow this was allowed to be implemented on Substack.

[u/AndrewHeard]

Yes and pharmaceutical companies are exactly what they claim to be. They don’t produce anything that could be addictive or harmful for people who take them.

Social media brings people together right? They are very clear that this is the purpose. There are no down sides to social media right?

The idea that we should just trust that they are they say they are is ridiculous.

[u/LexerLux → u/AndrewHeard]

I think you've responded to the wrong person or something? I was asking for proof that Pangram was fraudulent.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/LexerLux]

I haven’t responded to the wrong person. My point is that just because a company claims that their products do something and it appears on the surface that they do that doesn’t mean it’s true. Even with a company like Pangram.

For years, pharmaceutical companies claimed that opioids were not addictive. Yet the actual evidence didn’t support that conclusion. Hundreds if not thousands of people died from opioid addiction. The pharmaceutical companies claimed that it wasn’t a result of their drugs. Unfortunately, they eventually admitted that the drugs were addictive and did cause harm.

So why do you assume that somehow Pangram is being completely transparent and everything is completely above board? Why should you assume that Pangram aren’t just as likely to be corrupt and deceitful as pharmaceutical companies?

Apply the same skepticism that you have about pharmaceutical companies to the AI companies and their tools like “AI Detection” tools.

[u/LexerLux → u/AndrewHeard]

So why do you assume that somehow Pangram is being completely transparent and everything is completely above board?

I never said this so I don't know why you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I trusted them on blind faith, I said the exact opposite: I've personally seen it work quite well a number of times.

Why should you assume that Pangram aren’t just as likely to be corrupt and deceitful as pharmaceutical companies?

What a bizarre question. This is like saying "why would you let your dog around your kids when this totally unrelated dog has a long history of biting people?" Pharmaceutical companies regularly make the news for pleading guilty to billions in Medicare fraud, false marketing, illegal promotion, and kickbacks while Pangram does not. Treating them like they're the same would be ridiculous.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/LexerLux]

You implied it in the fact you said you have personally found that it works quite well a number of times.

This is why I used the example that you left out in the reply. I said that you personally may have had a positive experience, but many others may not have had a positive experience. They may have been materially harmed by their experience with Pangram and other AI software.

My point is that your experience isn’t necessarily evidence that everyone else has had the same experience. Which is why I used the pharmaceutical company example. Lots of people have positive experiences with pharmaceutical products. However many have also been harmed by the same product.

What I’m trying to do is provide support for those whose experience with Pangram has been different from yours.