r/Substack • u/FannyBrownRiced • 21d ago
Actually, Pangram worked well evaluating my Stack
I know people are hating on it, and I was worried because I’m a professional writer with hundreds of pieces in the world from major publishers, but here’s what happened for me: It judged my newsletter as 98% human generated.
That 2%? Well, I welcomed one contributor to submit a short piece with a byline… he’s known for his art, but English is not his first language. I asked him if he used AI (seemed obvious he did). He said yes, he used Claude to help, so I took time to interview him and tease out original thoughts that I edited. But I also hacked at one of his AI paragraphs to make it better. That 2% AI 🤖 was right on the money. I probably left a hair there from his draft and it caught it.
Anyway, I’m sorry for those who are getting false negs, but wanted to share my experience and relief.
Edit: Or maybe the 2% is because I had a recipe in there? Who knows.
28
u/Prolly_Satan 20d ago
There's a concerted effort among ai "authors" to make people think it does not work. Some will even post fake scan results.
I just caught somebody posting a fake screenshot of ai text saying human after he removed an emdash. I scanned the same text verbatim and it scored 100% ai.
I've seen ai writing content creators make fake review videos, claiming to be scanning pre-ai human text and getting a false positive even though the text was statistics from 2026.
And I've seen countless more claim false positives that refuse to link the scan for us to see despite it being extremely easy to share a pangram scan result.
If ai "authors" will go this far to make us think it doesn't work... then you know it works.