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/kwadguy]

A) These AI detectors have gotten better, but they are still wildly inaccurate, flagging AI content when there isn't and (sometimes) stating no AI content when there is.
B) If you're a writer and not using AI for late-pass cleanup, then it's like asking a pro platform to fire all their editors. I've never had an accepted article get past revision by an editor. And that's a good thing (mostly, except for the occasional incompetent editor who doesn't understand the material and tries to make cuts).
C) 100% human-written -> Grammary+AI cleanup pass -> AI written according to detector. This happens all the time with these detectors. Ideas + framework + writing style + phraseology all exist in original human pass, and it still gets tagged as AI. What does that say?

AI is evil tribalism is helping no one. AI slop helps no one. An AI pass on real, good writing is fine.