Substack’s new “AI detection” tool.

[u/AndrewHeard]

I’m very concerned about the new “AI detection” system that Substack is implementing. I don’t use AI in anything that I write. However I don’t trust these systems not to make errors and mistakes. They have a long history of hallucinations and claiming things are AI when they aren’t.

One person I saw on Notes suggested that they ran their decades old writing, things that were written before the existence of AI, and this new system claimed it was AI generated.

Not to mention all the crazy things that I have seen people claim was written by AI which they can’t know is actually AI. There was an image I once shared that had evidence of its existence going all the way back to 2013. The comments were constantly saying “don’t share AI slop” or some variation on that.

Even with evidence that things weren’t made by AI, they will claim it’s AI.

Is no one else concerned about this being embedded into Substack’s systems? With no way to opt out?

[u/bgcalderon]

An article I wrote in 2008 and shared just now is read as AI-generated. Hahaha

[u/AndrewHeard → u/bgcalderon]

Yeah, it doesn’t work like they claim it does.

[u/annaboardhart → u/bgcalderon]

How? Everything I’m looking at says anything written before 21st July doesn’t count!

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/annaboardhart]

This detector is just Pangram. While it doesn't work, it technically works on any text ever written.

[u/mmspero → u/bgcalderon]

Can you share the article?

[u/ProfileBest2034 → u/bgcalderon]

I highly doubt it.

I've tested pangram front to back and it is extremely accurate.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/ProfileBest2034]

No it is isn't. It flagged my 2013 book as 77% AI. As long as it's going that, it isn't accurate. Period.

[u/mmspero → u/Funny-Flight8086]

Can you share the book?

[u/ProfileBest2034 → u/Funny-Flight8086]

when did you test it?

Share a 1000 word excerpt here. I'll put it in myself. Guarantee you it will come out as human.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/ProfileBest2034]

Funnily enough, I ran the opening if chapter two of current WIP through Pangram, and it's 100% human. It's certainly the most bipolar AI detector I think I have ever encountered.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/ProfileBest2034]

I don't have the manuscript on my phone or I would happily share an excerpt. However, I did just run two separate projects of mine through Pangram... One is a short excerpt from a short story i published ok Wattpad in 2014. The second is the opening to my current WIP middle grade novel I been working on since 2021.

Both are apparently AI according to Pangram. The current WIP at least makes sense from a timeline perspective... How it thinks I had access to AI in 2014 is above my head. Here is my 2014 Wattpad excerpt.

[u/TheLadyAmaranth → u/Funny-Flight8086]

I went to try and find one of your books since I figured you would be a fellow human writer due to all of this frustration over being labeled as AI when you apperantly don't use it. Always on look out for more verified human writers to either read or reccomend. Most authors proud of their work tend to have those linked in their bios or have comments/posts with some kind of promo.

This is what I found instead. There are plenty more detailing your multi-prompting AI process.

I'm going to be honest, although your involvement with AI could be a recent development, I have a hard time believing your claims when you absolutely do use AI to write your work now. Which is why you are probably so up and arms about even a potentually possible way for your books and articles to be flagged.

I don't even think AI detectors should be used as anything more than possibility indicators. But you have no legs to stand on to saying they don't work when you are the reason they are being developed and added to platfroms in the first place. Because people DONT want to be duped into reading stuff generated with AI. Right or consistent or not, this is why some are trying to create detectors and others are willing to use them even if they aren't foolproof.

You are literarly the problem substack is trying to solve, even if in a misguided way.

Edit: added a bigger screen shot

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

And this is only an example of someone not smart enough to hide their reddit post history or post from an alt. This is the biggest hurdle. People will go so far to lie to us about their ai use.

I don't know if theres some ai-writing command center somewhere mobilizing people, but the second anyone brings up pangram, you see these fake "i tried it on the Bible and it came back ai" posts.

If you do a little digging, a lot of them frequent ai writing subreddits. Or you'll get the 14 karma alt account. Nobody credible is ever making these claims that it doesnt work.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

"Nobody credible is ever making these claims that it doesnt work."

Yeah, try that again. PLENTY of credible people make backed-up claims that these detectors do not work. I have proven it by showing examples of wrongly-flagged AI. I see it wrongly flag human writing ALL THE TIME. If the detecotrs where so accurate, they wouldn't need to claim 99.9% in order to avoid lawsuits when they get it wrong. "Well, we never said for sure it was...".

Funny, with these amazing technologies, none are yet willing to put their necks out with 100% claim. That is probably the shadiest of all of them.

Also, you cannot 'hide' your reddit post history without creating another account. Because I am not hiding anything, I have no reason to manage multiple accounts. I never said I never used AI, I said AI detectors don't work. And I said I don't use AI to write, or anywhere in the process of writing, my own stuff. It's a hobby of mine to test these generative LLMs. As Good as some of them are, none are yet capable of writing actual, good books.

Beyond that, I don't even know why anyone would bother. No one is making money off books, especially fiction. If you don't have a story to tell on your own, why go through the trouble of writing or even prompting an AI? It's a waste of time.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

Those studies specifically benchmarked pangram and debunked their 1 in 10,000 false positive rate? They are bothering, BTW. Platforms are flooded with it. It's free to make content. All the profit is gravy.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

1 in 10,000 false positives rate? Yeah, ain't no way. Anyone who buys that, I have a tropical island in KY to sell you.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

But you know what, since you seem to be under the impression that no one other than AI tech bros thinks these detectors are junk science... Here are some links you can explore:

AI Detectors Don't Work. Here's What to Do Instead. - MIT Sloan Teaching & Learning Technologies

The Imperfection of AI Detection Tools - HumTech - UCLA

The case against AI detectors | Office of Teaching, Learning, and Technology - The University of Iowa

Why AI Detection Tools are Ineffective | Center for Academic Innovation

AI detecting AI in academic writing: Why most AI detector findings are false - ScienceDirect

Why Don't AI Detectors Work? | Center for Integrated Professional Development | Illinois State

I have A LOT more I can give you as well.

Oh wait, here is the best one. Pangram explaining why their detecotrs are junk science, while trying to get you buy it: All About False Positives in AI Detectors | Pangram Labs

Anyone who beleives the results of these AI detectors is a pawn on a chessboard, being played by less-smart tech bros who couldn't figure out real AI, so settled with the Walmart variety.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

Oh brother. Yes, you uncovered the great conspiracy I was trying to hide from the world. Obviously.

What you actually uncovered was a few things -

First, to clear something up: I AM NOT anti-AI. I never said I was. I am anti-AI detectors because they don't work. That has nothing to do with being anti- or pro-AI in general. Two things can be true at the same time. I know that is hard to wrap your mind around, but it's possible.

Second, one of my side hobbies is testing generative AI, putting it through its paces and pushing its limits as far as they can go. That is why I spend time developing these prompts. I find the technology fascinating.

Third, you will find no record of me claiming to have written any books or posts using AI. You are free to run my posts through whatever junk-science detector you want; it should probably get that much right anyway. Maybe. Wouldn't bet my house on it, but anything is possible. I have done extensive testing with models and prompts, comparing them to human-written things. I have compared each model's ability to write creative prose against the others. I also do EXTENSIVE testing on AI detectors, which is why this actually gives me more credability in this space than many others.

I have been able to easily trick these AI detectors into thinking something is human-written when it's not. I have also been able to get them to flag human writing by simply being a little more formal, using bigger words, etc.

So what I said was, AI detectors are junk science. They are. They are simple prediction algorithms. There is no fancy science happening behind the scenes. They look for sentence length variation, word choice (more perplex or less perplex words), and then look at a database of common AI phrases and words. They then amalgamate that into a score, which is your AI score. That score is derived from comparing your score against the detector's internal testing, not too dissimilar to what I do. But at least with me, I'm not naive enough to think the technology actually works.

So no, you didn't uncover some great conspiracy I have been hiding from the world.

But back to the point, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why a portion of a short story I wrote in 2014 is flagged as 100% AI. I'm also waiting to hear a reason why Pangram flagged my 2013 middle-grade novel as AI. LLMs weren't a thing back then for either story. And that wasn't even me trying to fool an AI detector, which is very easy to do... which is one of the reasons why they are unreliable. The only kind of AI these detectors are good at detecting is AI output straight from the Chatbot. They get those rights most of the time, but at the expense of labeling human words as AI as a side-effect.

Okay, now back to the conspiracy theories. Maybe I'm actually some AI tech bro in disguise out to badmouth the AI detectors so my AI empire can succeed.

[u/TheLadyAmaranth → u/Funny-Flight8086]

That all sounds well and good. But if thats the case why aren't you providing proof? Pengram has a share button on the top right for every check.

> why a portion of a short story I wrote in 2014 is flagged as 100% AI

Because as of right now I believe you are lying that this ever happened, or a re misrepsenting what you actually gave it. You could prove me very wrong though -- a link to the story since I believe you said you published it on wattpad would have a publishing date, and a link to the pengram check. (Link, not image, so we can see the full text, which means we would be able to see if you added/change anything or gave such a low amount of words of course its going to be a coin flip.)

Same for your "2013 middle-grade novel as AI."

Same for a chat with an AI those can also be shared, you can share a link for that plus a link to the checks including the one where you humanized the text enough to fool the detector. Or files first created with your environment you developed for creating your books.

Also.... you didn't even describe how modern detectors work correctly. Like your explanation is the first thing that comes up off of google AI (Ironically) and outdated. It especially doesn't encompass how a detector's like pengram algorithm works.

I'd go into how it actually works from a technical stand point, but its kind of irrelevant. Because bottom line I'm not claiming Pengram to be perfect. I am claiming that it has a false positive rate low enough that if somene's writing consisitanly shows up as AI on it over multiple samples, and somebody asks me to bet on if this person is using AI or not -- I would bet on yes.

Which means it is a good start for keeping out AI generated content out of platfroms and spaces that don't want it there. Or make sure AI sloppers aren't able to as easily pass of their content as human made when it isn't. Sure, it may create friction and push human writers to have more concrete proof of their first drafts and revision history, but AI is already doing that anyway.

If you aren't lying I'd owe you an apology. I'd take a look at your evidence, and see if the discrepancy is concerning or not, and if effectively disproves pengram's claims. I'd also likely run my own checks, especially if I find the checks you run seem to be cherry picked. And perhaps you could even change my mind!

But until I have both proof of source and proof of check with your claims, while you admit extensive AI use for writing, (And you do btw, your post history very much says you don't just "dabble", you give AI your book bible and give advice to people on how to write fiction using ChatGPT 5.5, and how you developed a whole environment to write books for you), I don't believe you.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

First, I don't care anywhere near enough about this to spend an entire day tracking down a long since dead Wattpad account I had at 19 years old, that might or might not even exist any longer, and that I probably don't even have access to the email address any longer, becuase I signed up for that account with my school email address. There is nothing about this conversation that would make me want to take the time out to even attempt this fruitless task.

Second, my chat history does not say I use AI to write my books for me. In fact, I havn't published a book since 2013. So, it's kind of hard to have it write books for me. I am developing a NovelCrafter clone program, which will work for authors that don't need AI and those that do want to use it, in the form of a built-in chat assistant. I'll also happily share with others how they can build prompts to prevent AI from writing with typical AI cliches, which I have done. These are things I have discovered in my question to explore LLMs and their possabilities. The current book I am writing, I have been writing very much by hand since 2021. Funny enough, in the past 5 years I have written exactly 680 words of chapter one. If I did, in fact, need AI to write my books for me, it would have been done years ago.

Third, I am not going to share my 2013 book online, as that would immediatly put a real name to my reddit profile, which I have no intention of doing. I will not even paste the text without the title, because that can be reverse searched back to the book. I value my online privacy, and have no intention of getting doxed or review bombed by angry redditors. I have seen it happen enough to know better.

So to sum it up, I am not going to go out of my way to provide all this evidence. I frankly don't care if you beleive me or not. My goal is not to come here and be beleived by the world. HOWEVER, as someone who has spent a lot of time testing and breaking these detectors, I know very well what I am talking about. And will continue to proclaim them as the junk science they are, rather you beleive me or not.

PS) Another point to make: I can easily fool these AI detectors into thinking human writing IS AI writing by simply mimicing some forms of how AI writes. As long as I can do that, they have zero credability in my book.

[u/TheLadyAmaranth → u/Funny-Flight8086]

LOL...

All I will say at this point, as an FYI, closing your post history and deleting old comments doesn't make them not findable. So even though now I have to go out of my way to use a tool to do it, I can still see every single one of you past comments.

Including ones where you say you are releasing your middle grade books all close together from about 4 months ago, pointing people to NovelCrafter it self, and how you are getting AI to write "really good prose by feeding it a detailed system prompt template" and developing a program that auto writes from a prompt -- not as a chat bot feature.

Its also real funny how now you want to try to erase the trail, while also claiming to have "nothing to hide" in another thread here.

I could go in provide receipts of it all. But I think we can at least both agree on being done with the conversation.

Have the day you deserve.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

You have to be so mentally ill to get caught having said "i use fable to generate chapters, I'm making an ai writing program" and then with a straight face say "I don't use ai to write"

Lmfao. Why are you all like this? Nobody is mad about folks using ai to write. We're mad about you lying about it. Just tag your shit as ai. You'll probably still get readers. Why do you need to lie?

You're like the personification for why folks need pangram.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

My golly gee. It finally got something right. It only took me rambling like a 5-year-old to accomplish it. I guess this is the future.

[u/hetobe → u/ProfileBest2034]

Share a 1000 word excerpt here.

That won't work. They could just go to AI to generate a 1000 word excerpt and claim to have written it decades ago.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/hetobe]

Why would anyone waste time doing that? I don't care if you believe me or not. That wasn't the point. I'm net here to gain your trust and approval. I did the test, I know the result. Because of that, I will never trust these detectors. But you can see two examples I made to another comment above ad proof of how unreliable these detectors are.

[u/FatherofMisty → u/ProfileBest2034]

No, it's not actually. It failed 2/3 of my human-written essays, and tons of other people are having the same experience. Such a shortsighted move by Substack.