I Wouldn't Say Pangram is Broken, But I Would Say That It's Brittle
substack.com · 4,663 words · saved by 1 readers
it seems way too easy to provoke Pangram into contradicting its own results
So let me get to the nut of this thing before I do my usual meandering. Recently, someone accused me of using AI to write this old post from about a year ago, specifically highlighting the section about Ta-Nehisi Coates. I replied by saying that the post contained no AI writing; nothing I publish has been written or edited by an LLM. My accuser proceeded to say that the AI detection tool Pangram flagged that portion as 100% AI written with high confidence, a result I replicated. (Pangram report.) As the man who wrote that piece, I knew that I wasn’t guilty, but I also knew that wasn’t going…
saved by
related reading
- I don't care (anymore) if your writing got a Pangram false positiveandrewwu.substack.com
- How does Pangram work?pangram.substack.com
- How does Pangram work?substack.com
- Seeing in Pangram Space | Pangrampangram.com
- Pangram 4 Technical Overviewpangram.com
- Pangram 4 Technical Reportpangram-public.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com
- If you let AI do your writing, I will come to your house and kill yousamkriss.substack.com
- We Can't Let AI Writing Take Over the Internetderekthompson.org
- Why Perplexity and Burstiness Fail to Detect AI | Pangram Labspangram.com
- Employee Spotlight: Meet Katherine, AI Research Scientist | Pangram Labspangram.com
- Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing - Wikipediaen.wikipedia.org
- God help me am I about to change my view on AI-assisted writing?rivalvoices.substack.com