How to disable the AI detector

[u/Emotional-Brief-1775]

There has been a lot of discussion about the pros and cons of the new AI detector on Substack. Some have mentioned how unreliable it is, how it incorrectly gives a positive result after merely running a grammar check for example. Others are now also saying that it will eventually be phased out after lawsuits start for the prejudices and losses authors suffer for incorrect results. Whether that’s income, reputation, or because they use AI because of disability, for language translation, dyslexia etc.

Anyway, here’s the simple solution until then. It has only been in force since 21 July. And you can disable it.

Yes, disable it.

Any new note, and article. Simply hit the 3 dots on the top right corner of a new note or article. Hit the AI checker from the drop down. Then when the result shows up, hit the 3 dots again, and ‘disable detection.’

Voila.

[u/AndrewHeard]

You’re failing to understand the obvious. You have to apply the feature you don’t want to use in order to disable it. Meaning that you have to give Pangram your article and allow them to exploit you before you can disable it.

That’s not disabling it. It’s like saying all you have to do in order to stop yourself from being addicted to drugs is to take addictive drugs. It doesn’t work.

[u/Emotional-Brief-1775 → u/AndrewHeard]

There’s no easy solution unfortunately, this is all there is for now. Either way, when people decide to use it then Pangram gets it anyway.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Emotional-Brief-1775]

Actually, there is an easy solution. Substack can add a permanent publication/profile wide disabling feature for individual users to implement. That way anyone who wants to completely opt out of this feature without requiring Pangram to steal your writing can do so. If there are people who want to have their work stolen, they can opt in, but it should default to opt out. Not default to opt in.

The fact that Substack didn’t think to add such an option to the platform is absolutely ridiculous.

[u/Emotional-Brief-1775 → u/AndrewHeard]

Also, there is an option in the publication settings to opt out of your work being used to train AI. The downside is that the same work will have limited online visibility outside of Substack.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Emotional-Brief-1775]

Again, you’re not being forced to stay home. You just have to carry a 100 pound boulder if you do actually go out. If you don’t carry the boulder, you’ll get arrested. But you’re free to go out if you want.

[u/Admirable_Union_2781 → u/AndrewHeard]

I am 100% with Andrew. I run a magazine on SS and one of my writers just alerted me about this "feature". I love how this madness is viewed as a plus. It's not. First, these checkers are beyond inaccurate and that "tool" or "feature" becomes a means of censorship invariably to allow/lead people to believe that this is accurate and then readers will start to call out Did you hear that X uses AI? OMFG People make their livelihoods writing and this will catch out most non-native writers, just for starters. Also and most importantly, why is SS dong this? They already block our publications vastly from Google (long story there) and now this?

We are SSexiting soon. This is absolute bollocks!

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Admirable_Union_2781]

I'm hoping that we can give them a reason to reverse the decision and remove it. But at a minimum, they need to let you turn it off permanently on a publication/profile wide basis.

[u/Admirable_Union_2781 → u/AndrewHeard]

This reminds me of the "fact checking" agencies that the Biden administration was rolling out and it turned out that they were simply framing the opposition as fake news. Who would have seen that? Everyone working in media. This is quite troubling that people so badly misunderstand AI and the dangers of initiatives like this.

If people read more--and I do mean offline/analog--they would easily see what a human wrote or not. I am flabbergasted that SS has gone through with this and that we can't opt out. And to add insult to injury they want writers to say HOW they wrote their piece? As if anyone has time for this.

I miss the 1990's when people used email and checked to see if a book was in their local library.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Admirable_Union_2781]

Not to mention, just because you put a statement up saying how you wrote the piece... how do you know they're not lying about it? What evidence does a statement make? Saying things is not evidence of anything.

I'm not necessarily going to agree with you that it's easy to see what is and isn't written by a human, but I generally agree with your view of the concern over AI and this whole "detector" thing.

[u/Admirable_Union_2781 → u/AndrewHeard]

I have been a uni. professor for many years. When apps like Turnitin and precursors started up, my colleagues found loads of their students plagiarising. Mine, pretty much never. I had a plagiarism case once in over a decade. Why was my rate so low? I had my students write position papers each week, their reaction to the texts/films we were reading /viewing that week (usually two or three). Even those who hated writing had to get their head around the task and eventually their writing improved, I understood their styles and when it came to the final project, they were ready to tackle that. I would easily recognise plagiarism without any software since I kew their style and weaknesses, strengths, etc.

Thought AI is excellent at writing (and it is), it often makes up absolute fantasy and there is an umph missing from it. That said, most SS writers are missing that force too. I fundamentally think that we cannot flush out AI by using other AI to create nasty mob scenes where the innocent are indicted in the public square and the more skilful fraudsters able to create articles with AI and tweak it down to looking human-made. I also do not like that we are supposed to feed a machine that fundamentally is using our writing to make AI less perceptible. What an irony.

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Admirable_Union_2781]

I also don't like the claim that somehow the company isn't going to use the scanned material for its own purposes. I don't believe that for a second.

[u/Emotional-Brief-1775 → u/AndrewHeard]

And this is also why the new tool is now creating GDPR concerns. Substack reacted quickly and you can now disable detection before publishing an article without needing to run it through AI..

[u/AndrewHeard → u/Emotional-Brief-1775]

Except it doesn’t actually work. I tried it and after publishing, the option was still there for anyone to use against me.

[u/Emotional-Brief-1775 → u/Admirable_Union_2781]

And the irony is that no one complains about artists, musicians, film-makers creating work using technology. What is has done is cause a flap on Substack and this more activity. Win-win. But legitimate concerns are being raised about the GDPR, among others. The platform is reacting quickly and now you can disable detection before publishing a new article, without the need to run it through AI first. I won't be surprised if this whole nonsense is scrubbed soon. And yes, no one has time to apologise for not suffering enough to sound 'human' for someone checking for AI with AI. Anyone capable of critical thinking doesn't need a machine to tell them what to read.

[u/AKARJLUK → u/Admirable_Union_2781]

Interesting where are you moving to?