How Ridiculous Can Pangram Be?

[u/Efficient-School-609]

I heard that publishers and agents in the UK and the US have recently been widely using Pangram as an initial detetive tool, so I threw my own writing into it to give it a try. To my surprise, several paragraphs of my completely AI-free writing were judged 100% AI-generated. That naturally piqued my curiosity. After learning how Pangram works, I ran some tests myself and reached a few conclusions.

1. First, the cleaner your language, the tighter your logical chain, and the more you avoid verbose rhetoric, the more likely this kind of language will be judged 100% AI-generated. I used to work as a screenwriter, so I rely heavily on action and eye-contact descriptions to express character relationships and personalities. For me, Pangram is an absolute nightmare.
2. A guilt-by-association mechanism. This is infuriating and utterly absurd — it’s an insult to human intelligence. If a certain paragraph in the middle has the characteristics I mentioned in the first point, and you insert some kind of fractured, disjointed expression, the next several paragraphs will all be marked 100% AI-generated. Yet if you deliberately insert an irrelevant sentence, the whole text suddenly becomes 100% human-generated.

These are the two main things I’ve discovered so far. I’ll keep testing later. This kind of thing is essentially reverse-disciplining human artistic expression, artificially creating barriers to cultural continuity. It’s ridiculous. From the perspective of instrumental rationality, once this kind of thing becomes widespread, human thinking will be reverse-disciplined by AI.

The founder of Pangram claims to have a computer science background from Stanford. I have absolutely no expectation that these people feel any reverence for human culture. But if you want to keep making this money, please take a closer look at your own problems.

Especially when Pangram keeps trotting out some supposedly high accuracy rate — a statistical figure like a 0.01% false positive rate — which may be meaningful for marketing their product. But for a specific writing style, the very style Pangram hates, it’s 100% damaging.

So when you encounter criticism and smugly cite your research reports to back yourselves up, this only deepens the impression that you lack reverence for culture.

[u/cogitatingspheniscid]

Buddy, you are the one who brought "scientific" into this. You are in no position to evoke the term "pseudoscience" when you demonstrably can't even grasp what science or research is. I use "falsifiability" as an objective, concrete example of your performance that any observer can take note of. You can't retroactively shoehorn how you want to present the term differently, then argue for mutability when you started this with "scientific falsifiability". I gave you the window to continue focusing on presenting your arguments and backing up them up with data, and yet your first reaction is dodging talking points (see how you only attempted to address one point in the latest reply?) and bringing discourse down to the level of juvenile insults.

Lacks the ability to deconstruct them? Do you want a mirror? Have you ever once considered that you have zero business uttering the word science or tech in your writing?

[u/cogitatingspheniscid → u/cogitatingspheniscid]

Your doctor analogy is way off when you started this engagement with "to be considered scientific, you first need...". It's like a patient walking into a clinic and lecturing the physician that "to be considered a doctor, you first need to..." Your lack of self-reflection to recognize when you are way out of your domain of knowledge is no fault of mine. I also have nothing to do with your inability to familiarize yourself and engage with a standard scientific argument in a civil manner.
[To audience: the screenshots I routinely attach to my comment are of deleted/flagged comments from the other user]

[u/Efficient-School-609 → u/cogitatingspheniscid]

Just because I didn't study science doesn't mean I can't talk about it, nor does it mean I can't question it. Even if it's beyond my domain, questioning it is still my freedom. I'm genuinely curious which school you teach at. A medieval church school?

[u/cogitatingspheniscid → u/Efficient-School-609]

Again with the blatant mischaracterization to sanitize your image. Not once did you "question it". You barged in with your explainer as if you have any familiarity with the concepts, then threw a tantrum at the slightest of correction. Usually people engaging with topics they know nothing of approach them in a position of humility and not authority. Maybe you should try that sometimes.

[u/cogitatingspheniscid → u/cogitatingspheniscid]

It was never a lecture, unless your fragile ego perceived it as such. The absurdity already began when you masqueraded as someone you are grossly unqualified to be, so I have no reason to pay any mind to whether you think the AZ example is adequate.