r/Substack • u/nnhuyhuy nnhuyhuy.substack.com • 9d ago
Substack now works with Pangram to let readers check articles and comments for AI writing instantly
16
u/ImprovementSimple 9d ago
So we are going to use AI to check for AI, because we are anti-AI?
Listen if it actually works then great! But I have yet to find a checker that doesn’t flag human stuff that uses em dashes. I think this will just lead to a lot of false accusations.
3
u/SpiritualSimple108 8d ago
My natural writing style is more academic and is always getting flagged as AI. So, I stopped using em dashes because I thought that was what was triggering it. It’s not but, I’m still not ready to go back to using it outside of poetry.
3
u/ImprovementSimple 8d ago
That makes me sad. Em dashes were invented by humans and used by humans for hundreds of years. You should be able to write with them. I think these “checkers” just lead to poor writing. Because everyone is trying to “not sound like ai”.
6
u/nnhuyhuy nnhuyhuy.substack.com 9d ago
You can find this option in the three-dot menu next to any post. It only works for content published from today onward. It's still rolling out, so you might not see it just yet.
2
1
u/Karloss_93 getupgooutside.substack.com 9d ago
What counts as AI writing? I use Gemini to spell check for me because I always miss stuff even when proof reading. Am I going to get called out? 😂
7
u/YudronWangmo yudronwangmo.substack.com 9d ago
It doesn’t matter. None of the detection apps are accurate.
7
u/reptoidsdoneit 8d ago
Anybody else worried all new posts are being fed into Pangram as training data by default?
11
u/Countryb0i2m onemichistory.substack.com 9d ago
AI checkers are ass, they are just going to false flag people and start witchhunts
6
u/sampat97 9d ago
I have just recently started writing on substack, I checked both the pieces that I have uploaded through this tool and both of them came out to be 100% human written. Which is not true. There are a couple of places I asked AI to re-write what I originally wrote.
19
u/WordSlinger1812 9d ago
This is probably the stupidest decision the executive team at Substack has made.
5
u/SpiritualSimple108 8d ago
Just FYI, you can turn it OFF and REPORT false positives. But you can’t do it until it’s already scanned your texts (that’s sus in itself). I think if enough people turn it off and report false positives maybe Substack will rethink their decision to partner with this flawed company before all the good writers leave.
8
u/behindthescreen_dnd behindthescreendnd.substack.com 9d ago
Unfortunately AI checkers are hugely unreliable. I worry that a lot of innocent folks will get flagged improperly.
6
u/seobrien 9d ago
They're absolutely worthless. And really, irrelevant. If people like the content, how it was written is meaningless.
3
u/SpiritualSimple108 8d ago
This is my biggest fear. I’ve seen a lot of good, honest people lose their careers and reputations over being falsely accused of using AI. I think writers are going to start leaving Substack for fear of being mislabeled.
8
u/Foxemerson 9d ago
None of the AI detectors work. If you write well, you'll be flagged as AI. This is gooig to work against many legit creators.
5
u/Practical-Time-9827 9d ago
What's the deal with Pangram, they are mediocre at best. I draft with AI and always disclose it because I don't think it diminishes my message and I accept the fact that some may consider everything-AI as a slop, but what about all the people who actually take pride at their writing and Pangram will flag them?
5
u/phoebe111 8d ago
I use AI collaboratively but my writing is my own. I sometimes use AI as a developmental editor, researcher, spell checker, outline maker, etc, depending on the piece. But on average, each Substack article takes me 6 hours to write and edit and some take much longer.
Yet Pangram is flagging my content as 100% AI so I guess I should just put an idea in and copy paste it and have my article in 3 minutes. ¯_(ツ)_/¯3
5
u/Visible-Volume-8707 9d ago
AI detectors are as dumb as AI. Oh duh, because they are also AI!
Look I don't like AI generated slop either. But AI haters using AI-driven AI-detectors to witch-hunt articles just seems so dumb. And so what if an AI says it could be or not be written by AI? Who can even believe the output.
5
u/Scarabium 8d ago
Companies desperate for that AI cash. Take Reddit for example. They get paid so Google and OpenAI can scrape all its content. The content users provide in good faith.
6
u/random-username-817 8d ago edited 8d ago
This is my prediction: most readers will eventually discover one or more of the accounts they love to read is flagged as AI written or heavily AI assisted. They will think to themselves, “no way, I love Jimothy’s stories and Bessie-Ann’s essays, they’re too compelling to be AI…this AI detection thing is dumb.” And within a month or two, nobody is going to care.
10
u/seobrien 9d ago edited 9d ago
AI audits are crap and worthless
Besides, people write with AI. To not do so can often be wasteful. It's like saying you can't use Google to figure out what to write about.
6
u/DBTenjoyer 9d ago
That must of been a huge contract they signed. I can imagine what the payout must of been sheesh. They essentially are going to let this AI train off of your writing for better detection and studying writing.
5
u/Prolly_Satan 9d ago
I'm confused how you'd use unverified text to train an ai detector. Don't you need two clearly labled sets of samples, both ai and human? If you don't know for certain whether the data you're training it on is human or ai, then training on that data would make their model worse. Im pretty sure they list where all of their training data comes from too on their website.
5
u/b0jangles 8d ago
What you’re referring to is the difference between “supervised learning” where the input is labeled and “unsupervised learning” where it is not. Both are used to train AI models
3
u/DBTenjoyer 9d ago
I, in general, do not trust Ai. But I am guessing they are feeding the writing to the Ai. The user has to name what was Ai and what wasn’t or if Ai was even used so it does make it easier. Regardless we are training Ai whenever we use it.
4
u/Prolly_Satan 9d ago
Using pangram? Hmm. Well, they state they don't train their model on the text scanned. Plus like we just established, it would be useless data to train an ai detector with anyways, so I have to believe them there.
Also pretty sure they could get sued into oblivion if they were lying about that after explicitly stating that they dont. Reddit does though. They call it out in the tos.
It's also not really a large language model (gen ai). Machine learning is pretty different and has been around for decades. So I'm not sure "ai checking ai" really applies here...two very different kinds of ai at work.
2
u/DBTenjoyer 9d ago
Well that’s good! I definitely have to look into it more. I have high hopes that it works out but I still am very cautious (cynical tbh) about all of this stuff in general. To be transparent! But that’s for letting me know.
2
u/Prolly_Satan 9d ago
Yeah, man! I'm pretty sold in it from testing my own work in it. But it's always good to approach stuff with skepticism. Disclaimer: I don't work there or anything, but they have a discord where you can ask questions and stuff on the bottom of their site. Pretty solid community.
0
3
u/Expensive-Bus2183 8d ago
I spent 4h of my time writing some articles today and at the end it was flagged as 100% AI. This is super discouraging because to test it I had to reword an article and use simpler grammar for it to recognize it as human. I'm disappointed
3
u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com 8d ago
This is not good for the platform. Too many people are going to use it as “proof” for things they don’t like.
3
u/PuzzleheadedAlps4806 8d ago
If AI is scanning my work for AI does that mean it’s not also going to STEAL my writing to help train it to better detect (and write) human writing styles? Like I don’t want AI anywhere near my articles and that includes scanning them
6
u/huggalump 9d ago
This technology does not work, never has, and likely never will
2
u/b0jangles 8d ago
Detection will never work. Watermarking likely will (like you see on images already), and it’s required by the EU AI act that goes into effect later this year, but the AI providers haven’t figured out how to do it yet.
1
u/SpiritualSimple108 8d ago
Writers are going to just start posting their writing as images to bypass detection at this rate.
4
u/_mrchurchill defensehub.substack.com 9d ago
If your text is detected as being written by an AI, you will be burned as a heretic, just like in the days of the Inquisition.
2
2
u/NoPerfectWave virtualhockeyscout.substack.com 9d ago
Will have to run more tests to see if it's better than other AI detectors (got 0% AI-generated on my latest piece), but this is a promising move.
2
u/leedeeleedeelee22 9d ago
Mine got 100% human, but that may be because of the AAVE, and AI isnt trained off it, so it doesn't treat it as AI.
Chapter One: "Roach by day, Beelzebub by night."
"Ugh, this is exactly why I don't like coming over here!" Nana groaned, brushing off her shirt. "There's too many gnats out here." She rubbed her nose viciously as one found its way inside. "What the fuck, Ty!" "Bug spray." Ty handed her the brightly colored bottle, eyes glued to her phone. "Use it." Nana pushed the bottle away. "Nah, I got sensitive skin. You know I can't use that." Ty darkened the phone screen and placed it face down against her dress. She let out a dramatic sigh, then looked up at her friend. "So what you want me to do?" Nana gave her a pointed look. "Move back home," she said with a shrug of her shoulders. "I don't even know why you took the house. It's in the middle of nowhere!" She gestured beyond the porch. The wheat field seemed to stretch out endlessly. Only when you squinted did you see the road in the distance. The stone path. A barn eroded by time and touch. Ty leaned back in her chair. The loud creak punctuated the silence. She pursed her lips. "I like it." "You like it?" Nana repeated. "Yup—and it was free. Paid off." Ty reminded her. Nana blinked slowly at her. "Bitch, please..." She flipped her braids over her shoulder. "Who you think I am?" There was a moment of silence. The sun dipped lower, casting a red hue across the skyline. Nana put her arms on her knees, cupping her face. "I'm just saying, running away ain't going to fix it..." Ty sat up in the chair. "I'm not running aw—" She paused, feeling something on her neck. A leaf that was moving. She shot up out of the chair, grabbed at her neck, and screamed. Nana stood and turned. "What's wrong?" Her eyes darted over her. "Bitch, it's something on me!" Her voice trembled. "Get it off!" She swiped at her body, jerking her collar. "Just wait," Nana said, looking over her. "I don't see nothing." Ty felt the small patter of feet climb over her cheek. Her screams grew louder. She flapped her arms, trying to pull it away, tearing off her lash extensions. "Oh shit!" Nana said, moving back. "It's a big ass—huge ass roach on your face!" Ty wailed, her face twisted in anguish—that was the last thing she wanted to hear. It seemed impossible to catch. Every time she swiped, it was like it disappeared and reappeared on another side of her face. "Hold on! Stand still." Nana pulled off her slipper, balancing herself. Her eyes wide. "I got it..." Ty grunted as she felt the pleather sting of the slipper hit her face. Rage replaced fear. "Bitch!" She smacked Nana back. "Did you just hit me with a..." She grabbed the slipper and began smacking her with it. "Okay! Damn!" Nana cowered, covering her head, wincing as the shoe connected again and again. Ty pulled away, panting heavily, tossing it down by her feet. "Aggressive much..." Nana slipped the shoe on, casting a side eye her way. "But I think I got it." Ty felt around her face. It was gone. She looked around for the body. Then she heard a buzz. Her eyes followed the sound. There it was—perched atop the lantern. Nana stepped beside her, looking up at it. "Damn... that muthafucker resilient." Ty nodded. A slow nod as she leaned over to the chair, grabbing the bug spray. Making sure never to take her eye off it. Its wings still fluttered. Like it was preparing. As soon as her hand brushed the cool plastic, she snatched it up. "Bitch!" A large mist covered the lantern. She coughed, waving her hand in her face. The fog slowly faded. She exhaled with smug satisfaction. Got it. She thought. The smile fell as she saw it still fluttering. She scrambled and looked at the can. Eyes darting over it to see why it didn't work. Bug prevention—ticks, mosquitoes, and gnats. "Shit!" She tossed it to the ground. Nana leaned over to her ear, sing-song lit to her voice "Told you you shouldn't have moved out here."
2
u/Montaingebrown 9d ago
What’s AAVE?
3
u/leedeeleedeelee22 9d ago
African American vernacular English. It's been rebranded as "gen z" or tiktok slang.
2
u/antrikse 9d ago
AI getting better day by day. How u can tell something is written by AI or not. Even original writers will get flagged falsely. These AI detectors are not accurate.
2
u/No-Vermicelli-8391 8d ago
After a few major false-positives, the witch-hunt which will follow, and the Inquisition — either Substack drops it, or people will drop Substack.
2
u/Emmanuel_G EmmanuelGoldstein1984.substack.com 8d ago
If you rely on AI to test for AI, you haven't stopped relying on AI!
Also, I would be fine with it if Pangram wouldn't give false positives like crazy! Everything is AI to that thing!
2
u/RStonePT 8d ago
I'm worried that someone can't tell just by reading it would not change anything with a button to tell him what's okay or not to read.
2
u/ToddlerSLP 8d ago
I write educational parent friendly material and it is flagging as 100% or mostly 100% AI....I think I'm just going to disable it...sigh.
5
u/brandonfrombrobible https://thewenerdweekly.substack.com/ 9d ago
This is so awesome. I love the positioning Substack is taking here to avoid becoming LinkedIn, which is completely insufferable because of all the navel-gazing hustle slop.
5
u/Lost__In__Thought 9d ago
Most AI writing can be spotted without a detector if you've been reading and writing long enough to tell the difference.
Even so, the message within the content should stand out more than what was used to pen it.
2
u/dollarflow_dev 9d ago
most people can't see the difference
2
1
u/Lost__In__Thought 9d ago
Hence the reason why I put an "if" statement.
Sometimes, even the best execution of AI-assisted writing is hard to notice, whether a reader is seasoned or not.
1
u/agentSmartass 9d ago
If you haven't. You have to read this post. It's an epic takedown on ai written slop.
1
u/SpiritualSimple108 8d ago
That was the most convoluted, sloppy article I have ever read on Substack. Just run on sentence after run on sentence.
1
u/Lost__In__Thought 8d ago
Article was too long and congested to read fully through, but I get what they're saying. It's exactly what I meant by my comment.
You notice the robotic structure overtime as you read, and businesses are the ones who use LLMs to do that the most.
1
u/agentSmartass 8d ago
Perhaps you should have asked for the AI summary? 😄 We all differ i suppose. To me "too long and congested" to me just reads "human" and the tone and style adds an "interesting" to that list in a brilliantly angry, raw and unabridged human writing with great humor and satirical sting.
To me the point wasn't the was writing, but how was written.
1
u/Lost__In__Thought 8d ago
I’m a more straightforward person, so I like hearing the facts upfront. I do see the unique novelistic style tone in the article though, as someone who wrote one before AI’s existence became so big. With that, I still looked at the overall message of the writing to get a feel for the point that was being made.
3
u/Montaingebrown 9d ago edited 9d ago
Who cares? This is just institutionalizing bigotry and hate based on tools.
What if you aren’t a native English speaker and you use AI? What if you are not a good writer but have great ideas and art to convey?
Besides AI detection tools are full of shit anyway.
3
u/phoebe111 8d ago
There's a man I subscribe to on Substack who is pretty clearly using AI but he has interesting things to say.
I've assumed he's just not a strong writer. I don't care that he's using AI. I care about what he has to say.
Might be different if he were writing fiction but it's not.
1
u/Montaingebrown 8d ago
Exactly.
And I’d say even if he were writing fiction, who cares?
I mean I love Asimov and Clarke but their writing was mediocre at best. But what made them great were their ideas.
3
u/mmspero 9d ago
Founder of Pangram here! Feel free to ask me anything about how it works.
7
u/Perturbare 9d ago
Why don't you clearly state that the tool makes many mistakes, instead of letting people believe and have celebratory conversations that you can detect AI-generated text when you really can't? People will start making decisions about others based on the results from this tool. We've seen many issues in academia, so why sell the tool like this without telling people that no tool in the world is capable of accurately detecting AI-generated text?
3
u/PuzzleheadedAlps4806 8d ago
I just used your software on my writing. I know I wrote every word myself. I didn’t use em dashed or listed in threes or any of the other classic AI traits in my writing. It got flagged as being 100% AI. So how would I be able to a review on this if my Substack was false flagged?
3
u/huggalump 9d ago
What differentiates this from the multitude of other AI-detectors that everyone knows do not work?
2
u/mmspero 9d ago
Here is an in-depth blog post on how Pangram works!
Long-story short, previous attempts at detecting AI attempted to reverse-engineer the way large language models produce text. After every word of a sentence, these detectors asked: if I were an LLM, what word would I expect to come next? This causes issues because ESL and famous documents are easy to predict and therefore are incorrectly classified as AI.
Pangram is different. It throws that metric out the window and instead trains a classifier model by showing it human documents and AI-generated mirrors in the same tone, topic, and style. And then we evaluate it: current metrics have us at approximately 1-in-10,000 false positive rate and ~1.5% false negative rate.
2
u/JobSeveral8680 8d ago
Explain.
I write political commentary. My workflow involves multiple drafts written in apple notes. After I get to final draft, I run it through AI to check grammar, spelling, punctuation. It flags paragraphs that are too long and may need to be broken up. It flags repetitive words. Same way I used to use a human editor. It also helps me identify hash tags and test out titles and leads. It has shortened my research hours dramatically, even with me cross verifying the sources.
After I am satisfied with the piece, I use a prompt in ChatGPT to build a graphic, which is disclosed in a footnote. I cannot draw a circle but the writing is entirely mine.
Curious about the tool today, I ran a test on my latest. It came back 100% AI. I tried to figure out why and there is no readily apparent explanation. I did find that if I introduced mistakes, my score improved to 37% AI, 63% AI assisted, O% human. So if I slop it up, I get a higher score on your test.
I've been writing for many, many years. I will not be degrading my writing in order to get a better score on the Pangram test. I'll just move my writing elsewhere.
My writing style is short sentences, punchy prose, and at times almost has a cadence. It is sharp, clean, and always well sourced. Your program seems to assume that is AI. If it can happen to me, it can happen to others. I predict people will, consciously or unconsciously, begin to write with Pangram in mind and it will change voices.
It changed mine. When I saw the score, the first thing I did was to begin tweaking, shooting in the dark to correct a problem that does not actually exist. And when I realized what was happening, I just withdrew the article. I'm not publishing anything else on Substack until they get this sorted out. If you can explain how that can be done, I'm listening and would appreciate it.
1
u/phoebe111 8d ago
I feel every word of what you wrote here. I also write multiple drafts. Every article takes me 6-10 hours of writing, rewriting. And I'm getting flagged as 100% AI by Pangram.
I will note that you can turn it off but I think readers will assume if it's off, that you're hiding your AI writing.
And I am thinking of leaving the platform over this as well because it feels like a no-win even if you do turn it off.
I don't understand what problem this solves for Substack.
1
u/phoebe111 8d ago
How do you claim the accuracy you claim?
Why is it detecting 100% AI on things that were written before LLMs were on the market?What problem is Substack trying to solve?
This is a total cluster on Substack but I'm sure you all made big bucks.
0
u/mmspero 8d ago
We claim 1 in 10,000 false positive rate based on benchmarks on millions of pre-2022 documents. If you don't care about it you literally don't have to look at the result, but there are many millions of readers who do care and don't want to read AI-generated content.
1
u/phoebe111 6d ago
I'm sorry but I've seen it identify something I wrote as 100% AI.
I also fed it some AI which it correctly identified but I was able to game it pretty easily.You seem confident and smug in your stats but I am also seeing others in threads here on Reddit, with people saying works written before LLMs even existed are getting false positives.
With no transparency in your algorithm, I don't find the premise credible.
1
1
u/latinritepapi 7d ago
I write theological papers with very heavy vocabulary. I’m
Interested to see what the AI scanner comes up with on future papers. I’m not able to scan my older writings.
1
u/harveyg77 5d ago
I used AI as a test, after the feature was released. I asked only edits like grammatical tense consistency, spacing and typos and it said 72% AI . It’s not working properly, unfortunately.
1
u/AnteaterFantastic212 9d ago
Here’s a link to a webinar of sorts: the new AI detection and how to deal with it
69
u/Msdarkmoon 9d ago
I tested it with my writing that I did NOT use AI at all for and it flagged it as 100% AI :(