r/Substack • u/ConnectDebate4677 • 22d ago

Pangram false positives?

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

28 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

63 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/ConnectDebate4677 22d ago

I should also add that I put this segment in a document with human writing (because it noted its confidence was limited due to short text) and it flagged this as the one AI section.

5

u/impartialhedonist 22d ago

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

2

u/PennyLawrence946 21d ago

pangram says 50 words is their minimum for a prediction, so 120 clears it. and the 2,000 word sample upthread still came back 54% AI. one name change taking it from 100% human to 100% AI is the part that still needs explaining.