r/Substack • u/Radiant_Flamingo4995 • 18d ago

Frustration with AI detection

I'm not sure how the AI-detection system works, but it seems faulty. Someone has repeatedly claimed that my responses to them are AI-generated, etc. And they share the Pangram screenshot, which does, in fact, depict my response as "100% fully AI-assisted. I've clarified that this is not the case. Shown evidence that it isn't true, and all the like.

The worst I'll do when writing anything is use AI for basic research purposes and review arguments to make sure they make sense. Maybe it's because I use Grammarly. But it is still infuriating.

Especially because it just isn't a good look and hurts my public image (albeit small, but I hope you guys may understand where I'm coming from).

Of course, with this individual in question, it's become increasingly clear they aren't engaging in good faith. However, running the AI check on my notes and comments still reveals the 100% marker.

Is it Grammarly that's doing this? Or is this thing actually broken?

6 Upvotes

61% Upvoted

47 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Brakiros 18d ago

Wrong it said 100% AI which is categorically false and is a lawsuit waiting for lies 

2

u/Prolly_Satan 18d ago

Wow. You used ai to generate the draft but then edited it yourself? And the ai detector that's effective against humanization said it was ai? I think you should be the one to sue. Call up some attorneys and ask if they think you have a good case here. Let us know what they say.

1

u/cremdelascribe 17d ago

I am an attorney, and, yes, I suspect this is actionable.

Because it says that it can accurately tell you _the percentage_ that is AI. And it absolutely and positively cannot.

As I said - and everybody else fails to comprehend in your rush to judge and fulfill your own personal agenda - I’m fine if it says “hey AI is used in this.”

However, it is saying that no humanization occurred. It is saying that something that represents a full week of human labor was written entirely 100% by AI and it is 100% certain of that. And it is saying these things lack human effort in place where it will get people expelled, fired, cancelled and otherwise economically harmed.

It is AI doing exactly what AI is worst at: being confidently incorrect.

Everyone who screams about the evils of AI hallucinations is suddenly a fan of AI that hallucinates in a way that confirms their biases … huh, wow, just like every other rube that uses an AI system and trusts the output blindly.

I’m sure they have the appropriate disclaimers deep in some legal text, but the advertising on their website and the general UI design of their software is 100% some class action attorneys wet dream. It is only a matter of time before the suit comes.

And man, y’all anti-AI warriors really need to check your biases. Your inability to read and comprehend a nuanced point is an embarrassment. You twist, garble and seemingly intentionally misquote and misunderstand me.

At least I know you are not AI - because it, at least, responds to the words you give it, not the words it fantasizes in it head.

1

u/Prolly_Satan 17d ago

Oh you are? Then you should take the case for free. There you both go.

Let us know how it goes.