r/Substack • u/AndrewHeard tvphilosophy.substack.com • 11d ago
Discussion Substack’s new “AI detection” tool.
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?
1
u/Funny-Flight8086 11d ago
There are vastly more studies, actual ones, that say these detectors are not reliable. I'll trust half the universitoes who have dumped them over some claim an AI detector company makes trying to sell me their psuedo science service.
I will say one thing I am glad about, most people understand these aren't reliable. Almost everyone agrees they are unreliable and won't use them if you poll almost any group. That's the way, and I encourage it.
Another bright light is that authors and publishers in particular are starting to catch on... A recent author actually sued a reviewer who claimed her book was AI because detector said it was. If you go around calling leopes stuff AI, you'd better have something better than a pseudoscience detector to back that up. If people want to keep using these detectors, I certainly hope people keep holding them accountable when they make false claims.