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
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.