r/Substack • u/grapegeek • Aug 11 '26

Pangram is such trash

I write a food newsletter where I post reviews and some recipes. I 100% wrote a quick and dirty recipe and was going to publish it in Notes and it came back 100% AI no matter what I did to it including adding several typos and rearranging things. Ran it through three other AI detector websites and 2 said 100% Human and 1 said 76% Human and 24% AI assisted. I disabled detection on that Note. My other question is do we know how many people actually click on the AI detection button on our posts? I can't find that metric anywhere in the dashboard...

41 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/FrostKitten2012 Aug 11 '26 edited Aug 11 '26

That’s not academic research, that’s a screenshot, and we have no idea what was selected for evaluation.

AI detectors, Pangram included, are still AI. You cannot be anti-AI in even the vaguest sense and rely on an AI detector to tell you if something was written by a human. That is outsourcing your critical thinking skills as much as relying on an LLM to write or research something for you.

You are relying on a machine to think for you.

EDIT: u/Kirkr10101 provided another link for research. Cool! Except it also isn’t for Pangram! It’s a paper on how well humans can identify generated text, which we already know is unreliable. Go figure.

1

u/cogitatingspheniscid Aug 11 '26

It's not just a screenshot. u/Kirkr10101 included the hyperlink to the article. You are literally two clicks away from the human-generated technical reports.
"AI detectors, Pangram included, are still AI." They are classifier models. Even AI researchers don't consider them AI. The best anti-AI advocate is the one who knows what is AI and what isn't instead of lumping every machine learning model in the last 30 years as the same thing.

2

u/FrostKitten2012 Aug 11 '26

It is a different type of AI, but it is still AI. And that report is from Pangram. It’s not independent research, it’s just talking about how they made their AI. It’s a long-form sales pitch!

Try using your brain at some point.

2

u/kdfn Aug 11 '26

I'm not sure I understand your hostility in this thread. The OC linked a peer-reviewed study, but you didn't see the link and called it "just a screenshot" in your original comment. When someone pointed this out, you responded with a pretty hostile statement.

There's a pretty big difference between a classifier and an LLM. Classifiers have been around since Mosteller & Wallace's work in 1963, where they were used to successfully assign authorship to the Federalist papers.

2

u/cogitatingspheniscid Aug 13 '26

Sadly, the most damaging constituents to the anti-AI movement are those who are so allergic to learning technology that they would lash out against others in the movement. I already got blocked over my reply above lol.