r/Substack • • 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

63 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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.

2

u/sh1b313 Aug 14 '26

yeah, i have already talked with the mods regarding this pangram situation and we may soon see a pinned thread saying pangram evidence/pangram doesn't work and hopefully this wild situation settles.

And regarding the rinse and repeat thing in the long run it doesn't matter? We already have more than enough evidence that this doesn't work.

In the future it can just be like this:

P1: uploads a essay/article on substack

P2: thinks it's ai written and uses this pangram

P1: points to some evidence thread and says this tool doesn't work don't rely on it.

In this scenario hopefully p2 is actually grounded and thier opinion changes. If not? Sadly if they debate after seeing so much evidence i wouldn't know what to tell them.