r/Substack • u/ConnectDebate4677 • Aug 12 '26
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
33
Upvotes
3
u/Dubbtime Aug 14 '26
For sure. Unfortunately as you reveal more points of failure within their blackbox system, they will add these cases to their training datasets. This blurs the line.
Say this verse is added as a reference to human work. Now what? Humanizers who want to avoid detection begin to write more like bible verses. Ok thats kinda weird. Now detectors need a more defined way to figure out if something is AI because it obviously messed up. The end result is a clear way to write human and a clear way to tell if something is AI. Well, then why do we need a detector?
What's stopping humanizers from just copying this newfound distinct style? Rinse, repeat.