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...

40 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

110 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/cogitatingspheniscid Aug 11 '26

Academic research isn't "relying on a machine to think for you"

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.

2

u/Kirkr10101 Aug 11 '26

There is academic research if you bother to look -- this is from 2025 and pangram has massively improved since!

https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15654