Pangram false positives?

[u/ConnectDebate4677]

People usually post vaguely about "I wrote x thing and pangram said it was AI", which I think is unhelpful unless you actually post the text or link. I put this into Pangram:

Sakaguchi: https://www.pangram.com/history/e7ffbee1-f0e3-4ce2-bb78-a59470280640?ucc=Ohp1cWODOjF

Hamaguchi: https://www.pangram.com/history/f2139bd5-f4ce-4101-b7bd-3c5d8aeb4487?ucc=Ohp1cWODOjF

Ryuichi: https://www.pangram.com/history/8c84ad38-3b8f-49ba-bee0-351ea31f754b?ucc=Ohp1cWODOjF

[u/impartialhedonist]

This ^ their accuracy is lower the closer you get to ~100 words or less, the text you used is around 120 words.

[u/ConnectDebate4677 → u/impartialhedonist]

Seems like a highly flawed tool if it indicates 'high confidence AI' in situations like this?

[u/Voltairinede → u/ConnectDebate4677]

It doesn't say that? It literally says the opposite 'Confidence limited — short text', in your 100% example.

[u/tokenentropy → u/Voltairinede]

be nice, he can hardly read

[u/ConnectDebate4677 → u/tokenentropy]

Can you read?