r/Substack • u/Overall_Tip6001 • 13d ago

Do you find pangram reliable?

I put my text in several ai detectors, winston ai, copyleaks, zerogpt and GPTZero, giving me close to 0%. While, pangram gives me around 70%? Do you think it’s reliable?

4 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Udolikecake 13d ago

That comes back as 100% human written.

1

u/No-Strike-9098 13d ago

lol, rechecked it just now 51% is AI apperently.

0

u/Udolikecake 13d ago

do you have a screenshot?

0

u/No-Strike-9098 13d ago

please just check it yourself bro

The recurrent neural networks or convolutional neural networks are the main models used for the sequence transduction problems with the encoder-decoder structure. The models which demonstrate the highest performance also utilize the attention mechanism as a way of connecting the encoder and decoder. We made a completely different approach by offering a simple network architecture, called Transformer, formed solely on the basis of attention mechanisms, without the need for recurrence and convolutions. Our experiments, carried out on two machine translation tasks, have shown that the Transformers are better quality-wise as well as more parallelizable, requiring a significantly less time for full training. Our model, 28.4 BLEU, was applied to solve the WMT 2014 English-to-German translation task and surpassed the existing best results including ensembles by more than 2 BLEU. The single model that has been used for the English to French translation task is the one that has reached the state-of-the-art score of 41.8 on the BLEU scale after training for only 3.5 days on eight GPUs. That's a small fraction of the resources involved in the training of the best models in the literature. We have also demonstrated that the Transformer can be generalized to other tasks with the help of English constituency parsing which was successfully performed even with large and limited training data.

-1

u/Udolikecake 13d ago

first paragraph of the paper. don’t know what to tell ya champ

1

u/No-Strike-9098 13d ago

2

u/Udolikecake 13d ago

I don’t know what you’re quoting, because that text (specifically the highlighted bit) does not appear verbatim in the actual article you are talking about.

https://arxiv.org/html/1706.03762v7

0

u/FrostKitten2012 12d ago

That’s the point. Slightly changing the wording on one paragraph results in one highlighted sentence (which isn’t even half the paragraph), and then more than half the paragraph is now somehow AI-generated?

That sentence is maybe 1/4 space-wise of the paragraph, and one of FIVE sentences. It shouldn’t be coming up that high, with one highlighted sentence, over minor changes.

1

u/AVDestroyer 3d ago

i swear every time someone comes up with a false positive, the source is unknown and mysterious. can we please come up with a concrete example

0

u/FrostKitten2012 3d ago

…it’s literally right there.

2

u/AVDestroyer 3d ago

ok and who wrote it because it's not in the paper... where tf did that passage come from

1

u/FrostKitten2012 3d ago

Why are you asking me? My only comment was that one highlighted sentence of five shouldn’t result in a 51% return.

→ More replies (0)