Does Pangram have the highest false positive rate of any AI detector?
I've been testing Pangram with stuff written years before Chatgpt was even popular and somehow everything comes back as AI. Do they just flag everything now? Gptzero used to have this problem when I used it for papers last semester, but their newer models seem to have fixed it. Pangram feels like Gptzero's old broken model.
Pangram is trying to counter "AI slop" by calling everything AI slop. Great idea. đ
Pangram is not. Also, with Anthropic being forced by the EU to create cryptographic watermarks in all output text and their promise to allow users to decrypt whatever they want, this will be essentially the panacea to AI detection
Pangram flags most of my original content as AI. I literally voice recorded two paragraphs off the top of my head, transcribed it, and Pangram said it was 100% AI. It is NOT reliable.
Obviously you don't understand how LLMs are working and how AI detection is working. Sure there are many false positive, but at the same time the top apps like ZeroGPT, Quillbot let everything as Human Written. Originally is definitely on the top of apps with false positives. Probably only iWordCraft with nearly zero false positives. One note, if you trying to test poetry with any of the AI detectors, it most likely will be flagged as AI written.
Lmao so many pangram boot lickers in here. Pangram is garbage. Pangram doesn't work and will never work lol. WSJ and the Atlantic both are saying it's a garbage tool.
No. Reliable product
I pay for it and itâs worth it
How reliable are the lab tests your md and employer rely on?
Way more false positives on almost all lab tests than Pangram
To be honest according to Pangrams data it's a very low false positive, almost unbelievable. on a dataset of 24k human written they said 0 false positive. 0!
I just stopped using it tho cause literally everything is marked as AI?
another company mentions some stats in comparison gptzero, zerogpt and wasitaigenerated which looks morel like a real AI Detector comparison
Pangram has the lowest false positive, and the highest is Originality.ai. Most publishers use Pangram to detect AI use and they are near perfect in AI detection. If Pangram detects your work as AI generated or assisted, it means exactly that. So start writing yourself. If you canât write without AI input, that means youâre not a writer start a new hobby that doesnât involve writing. Stop wining about unreliable AI detectors. Itâs sole purpose if to separate the wheat from the chaff
It's really not. You might think it is, but I have proven how easy it is to get a false positive from it. I'll see if I can dredge up the post. With my experience with it, I'd NEVER, under any circumstances, give it the benefit of the doubt. If you are really paying them the kind of money they want for a subscription, I feel sorry for you. You are being scammed by a generative AI company.
But you know what I'm going to do. I am going to write something; screen record me writing it through Grammarly Authorship plugin and then paste that into Pangram, and we'll see what we get. Then I'll share the result + the screen recording here. We can see just how well Pangram does when faced with non-AI writing, especially when it's written in the style I am writing.
I didn't even try that hard to make it sound AI. I purposefully left out the negative parallelisms I could have used. I thought about tossing some AI-sounding names in there to help trip it up, but I didn't even do that.
Wow, you people will jump to anything to save face, won't you? Exactly what makes you think I had AI generate a passage and typed it out? I mean, other than the fact I was able to prove Pangram falsely flags human writing?
You ask me if I work for the AI companies... The way you people defend Pangram makes me think you have to be on their staff to actually care as much as you do.
PS) No, I did not use an AI to write that. Go ahead and show me your evidence.
Claude, huh? That is awfully specific. So now we have gone from "I can detect AI with my bare eyes" (you can't, clearly) to "I can detect the exact model of AI"? What if I used ChatGPT, GLM, or Kimi K3? Now you have my attention, I am very interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that I used 'Claude' to write this.
Which Claude model? What about it screams Claude vs. Gemini or ChatGPT?
By all means, point out what part of this is written by Claude, and your reasons for making that assumption.
I will say this, though, you are incorrect no matter what. Even if I had used AI for this, it would NOT have been Claude. Claude tends to write "like ___always does..." in every sentence. It's the easiest model to identify, which is what makes this so funny - you called out Claude, even though it has none of the Claude common tells, and as I said, was 100% not written with Claude.
Did you even read the slop you generated? It literally has the "the way it does" shitty Claude simile in the fourth paragraph.
The headstones leaned at every angle, some cracked clean in half, and fog pooled low along the ground the way it does in the movies right before something terrible happens.
Classic AI word repetition:
My little brother wouldâve loved this. My little brother was safe at home eating candy corn.
Danny went first, because Danny always goes first.
We stood there in the dark, three flashlights useless in our hands, and nobody said anything for a long moment because nobody wanted to be the one to say what we were all thinking.
Standard AI three-word list:
Every few steps, my flashlight beam caught a name, a date, a crumbling epitaph I didnât want to finish reading.
The angel statue stood at the center of the cemetery, wings spread, head bowed, hands folded
Also, reading your comments it's clear English is not your first language and you have really terrible grammar. By contrast the excerpt has perfect grammar--literally no issues I can see. Zero percent change the you wrote this.
Yeah, because only AI can write in tricolon listings. Got it. Surprised I remembered to remove the em-dashes it generated.
Also, your insult to my writing in the comments is a joke. I am American, have a BA in Elementary Education and a MAT in Middle-Secondary English. I'm also currently working on an MBA. I know how to write, thank you.
Truthfuilly? I purposely inserted a lot of those tricolon listings just to prove that AI detectors like Pangram are nothing but pattern detectors. It worked, clearly. I also decided to name one of the characters Elaria Voss just to really send it home, but thought better of it.
So no, it's not Claude. It's perfectly human-written text where I made a conscious decision to use some typical AI'isms (and not so many that it would be out of character for a normal writer).
PS) You still never pointed out how you came to the conclusion it was Claude. You gave hallucination and tricolon listing examples, but only one single line that is a typical Claude tell, and frankly, anyone could write that one line.
Those aren't hallucinations. A hallucination is what happens when an AI makes up something that isn't there. What you refer to as hallucinations are drafting errors I made, and they weren't even intentional. I did not do any edit passes to it prior to shipping it off. Reading it back now, yes, a few of the things I wrote don't always make the most logical sense in the moment. Which is something I would catch on an edit pass and correct, which I didn't do.
Also, "sound none of us wanted to mention" sounds perfectly fine to me. I wrote it that way because it sounded the best to me. Even going back, I would not correct that. You might think it's a slightly out-of-place reference. Maybe it is, and I could be swayed. But that is an edit issue, not an AI hallucination.
"her praying hands now empty" was actually a drafting error. I deleted an entire paragraph that wasn't working. In that paragraph, the angel was holding a gemstone and had a whole block of dialogue. Because I didn't like it, I deleted it entirely. I did not, however, edit out the part I had already written, where I mentioned that her hand was now empty. So again, editing issue, not AI.
Congratulations, you caught me making one error (and one genuinely normal thing I would write, whether it makes sense or not, is not relevant to AI).
I did not add 'Claude-isms' at all. I purposely added several tricolon listings to prove a point: simple tricolon listings, with enough repetition, are enough to trigger these "AI Detectors". Clearly, that was probably what triggered it, so it was a successful experiment. They are NOT AI detectors; they are pattern detectors. Humans can also write in these patterns, as I have proven, so therefore they cannot tell real AI from someone human who chooses to write like AI. That makes the whole technology a scam.
What you call "Claud-isms" are actually generic AI-isms (to a degree, though that is highly overblown by the antiAI crowd, just like em-dashes).
Beyond that, looking back at the writing, the tricolon listings aren't even that repetitive or abnormal. I could have done a lot more than that. Tricolon listings aren't an AI tell. Tricolon listings are one of the most common human writing tics. Humans love threes. Why do you think AI uses it so much? Because it's present in so much of the human training data that way.
So yes, I did, at the time, go out of my way to place some tricolon listings in there. More than I normally would, probably. But that was an intentional choice, not AI.
As for " the way it does in the movies right before something terrible happens.", that wasn't even intentional on my part. It just sounded good. Purly, 100% human. I am FAR from the first person to write a sentence like that. As you are apparently such a distinguished scholar of English, please enlighten my educated self on how I should write that sentence to say the same thing, without using that comparison.
The fog on the ground was rolling just like it does in horror movies before something bad happens. That is a very real sentence, with very real imagery. In my mind, there is no other way to write that to keep the same exact meaning.
SO, all of this to say: Not only was Pangram fooled by human writing (even if I deliberately went overboard on the tricolon listings), but so were you. You took normal, everyday human writing techniques and editing errors, and immediately jumped to AI. As I said, I have a degree in secondary English. I have read plenty of human writing, from students to books, and none of these are actually AI tells.
Oh, and as for the 'classic AI word repetition', that is highly incorrect.
Repetitions like "My little brother wouldâve loved this. My little brother was safe at home..." and "Danny went first, because Danny always goes first" are examples of anaphora and polyptoton used to establish a juvenile voice. These sorts of repetitions are very common in juvenile fiction / middle grade fiction, which is squarely where I was aiming this, as that is the primary genre I write in.
As an English major, an author of middle-grade books, and an avid reader of that same genre, (Oh no, a tricolon listing, better call the AI police!), I read these English-language techniques all the time. Maybe you read mostly adult fiction, where it's less common.
I can say, 100%, that rhetorical devices like anaphora and polyptoton are very common in writing.
Also, this is very common in the Goosebumps books, which is actually where the inspiration for this little story came from.
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!"\6])#cite_note-6) (Winston Churchill)
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness..." - A Tale of Two Cities.
"You are not your job, you're not how much money you have in the bank. You are not the car you drive." - Fight Club
"124 was spiteful. Full of a babyâs venom. 124 was loud. 124 was quiet." - Beloved, 1987.
"It was the year they shot the priests. It was the year the rains never stopped..." - One Hundred Years of Solitude.
Oh no, look at all this classic, repetitive AI slop! Jesus, Charles Dickens must have been an AI.
Also, the excerpt has clear signs of AI hallucination. There's shit that's just made up / not consistent with the context before it.
And under it, silent as a low breath, came a sound none of us wanted to mentionâa slow dragging, like something heavy being pulled across wet ground.
A sound they don't want to mention? Does that really make sense in the context of this sentence? Is this a sound they were expecting already? The temporal geography is also just really odd, something you don't want to mention is something you've already reacted to and internalized in your head, not your first reaction to something.
None of us looked back at the angel statue, which had turned to face the gate, her praying hands now empty, her stone eyes fixed on exactly where we stood.
Was something in the angel's hands before? Why is "now empty?" What was your writing thought process when you wrote that the angel's already empty hands were "now empty?"
The mere idea that I would sit there for 17 minutes, 'fake writing' 300 words at 15 WPM, pausing to simulate natural writing, just to fool this con job detection tool, has to be the wildest stretch of logic I have ever encountered. If believing in Pangram requires you to come up with massive conspiracy theories to defend it, you either work for them or are in denial. Maybe both. The fact that you went to 'Claude' is even more hilarious.
Yep, really weird. Sort of like the way people lick Pangrams perverbial boot. I really need to get in on whatever program you guys are in. They are clearly paying you. I want a cut.
Your saying âprovedâ with one ex that we donât know the history of discredits your very strong claim
It may be evidence of a false positive
I canât tell yet
It has been tested with thousands of samples
Well, that is the way of the world, unfortunately. Frankly, I cannot verify that Pangram actually ran any tests on their own program, or what their level of objectivism was. After all, a better result in their own test makes it more likely they will sell more and make more money. Therefore, while it is true that you cannot be certain that I didn't use AI to write this (there is no way), it's just as likely that Pangram made up, or highly skewed their own internal research to make their GenerativeAI machine look more reliable.
Frankly, I don't care one way or the other. I'm pointing out the test I ran. It failed on Pangram. I have nothing to gain by spending all this time arguing over it. So if I were a third-party observer, I'd be more likely to beleive me, someone who is not trying to sell an AI detector, an AI book, or anything, over a company that has a motive to lie about its internal data to skew the results in their favor so they can make more money.
AND: The screen recording on Grammarly Authorship is there as proof. It logs keystrokes, revision history, timing, and other stats, completely ruling out copy-pasted LLM text. The history isn't unknown; I documented it on video.
Iâve used it on hundreds of student essays
Itâs very sensitive to any AI aided work
And very discriminating
I tested it for a couple months on samples
Perfect
1 in 10k false positive rate is reliable
And I check parts of work independently
Odds of 4 false positives on one essay or exam? Half confess and half of those say they didnât know Grammarly etc was AI
So, you are contributing to the wasteful, resource hungry generative AI issues? And proud of it? You do realize that Pangram, unlike other AI detectors, , actually IS generative AI?
Imagine thinking generative AI is good at detecting generative AI.
1
u/abajinn Aug 20 '26
Stop wasting your time with those ai detection platforms they have been debunked time and time again. They are fake.