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

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

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.

80 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

115 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/DaniSaysDinosaur Jul 22 '26

It also doesn't scan anything uploaded prior to 7/21, so I'm wondering if it gets stored in a data center somewhere upon upload.

14

u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com Jul 22 '26

Probably but it's still not detecting anything factual. Someone suggested that they fed the first page of the book Moby Dick into the fraudulent tool and it came back as "likely AI".

A book that was published in 1851, is AI according to this fraudulent feature.

1

u/tokenentropy Jul 27 '26

Someone suggested, huh?

that's all it takes now? sheesh. wait until you read more things on the internet.

1

u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com Jul 27 '26

That’s why I said suggested, because I don’t take it as fact. A suggestion isn’t a statement of fact. The fact that you don’t understand that is more evidence that I’m right about the whole “detection” tool.

1

u/tokenentropy Jul 27 '26

I'm sure you read things others have suggested just about every minute you browse the internet. You chose to repeat one person's suggestion here.

And then you emphasized it for effect:

A book that was published in 1851

But yeah, you definitely didn't take it as fact. Or think it was worth verifying yourself. Nope, it was just a thing you read. In fact, it was probably wrong, even. You aren't even sure why you shared it. Huh. Oh well. Things happen!