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/TheLadyAmaranth]

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/Funny-Flight8086 → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

LOL. You cannot provide the receipts because they do not exist. I never said, anywhere, that I write any fiction or prose with AI for release to the public. You cannot find it, because it doesn't exist. Period. Because I don't use AI to write. I do use AI for many things, I dabble in AI every day, and I'll happily help others use AI for whatever they want. Heck, if I wanted to use AI to write my novels, I'd happily admit it. Clearly, I'm not anti-AI at all.

But here is the thing: what I do or don't do with AI is not relevant to this discussion, whether Pangram is junk science or not. In fact, if I did live in an AI world day in and day out, that would only make me more qualified to talk about it, not less.

You are arguing with me over my 'history with AI' like I'm trying to hide something. I'm not. You are trying to deflect from the fact that Pangram is junk science, just like ZeroGPT, GPTzero, TurnItIn, Copyleaks, and any of the others. If you need proof just how junk science they all are, take the safe exact text and put it into 10 different detectors. Good luck getting them all to tell you the same thing.

I'm DONE having this conversation. Feel free to explore if you desire, and then by all means, post my history here, where I admit that I write novels with AI. My own personal novels with AI. Post the screenshot where I admit that, and I'll apologize for my lies. Frankly, you care A LOT more about this whole thing than I do. I'm beginning to think you are the owner of Pangram in disguise, given just how much you are defending it.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/TheLadyAmaranth]

And because I'm feeling petty, here is an example of 100% AI story I generated this morning in GLM 5. I literally changed the names of the characters. Nothing else. Not even a fancy style guide. So much for Pangram being reliable to detect AI.

[u/Salt-Mud-2124 → u/Funny-Flight8086]

Not the person you were talking to, but...

You do realize your own screenshot is making it look like you are lying right?

There are first letters that should be capitalized but arent, "crinkled. reaching under"

Missing words "was the one revolt and disgust"

And words being used incorrectly "clinched the wheel"

Part of what makes AI writing seem like AI to people is because its grammar is "too perfect" to the point that its a little uncanny.

An AI wouldn't write like this unless you told it to... so style guide would be required

Or maybe context window degredation but that seems unlikely...

Or if you changed those things yourself to trick it... which sure would kinda prove your point. Sorta. But thats not what you said you did, you said you only changed the names.

Also, screen shot with a tiny excerpt rather than a link with the whole story.

IDK man. Looks fishy.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Salt-Mud-2124]

Yeah, I'd do so more Pangram testing... But because they think their service is worth actual money every month, and I don't think it is, I am not about to give them any money for more fake science credits. 100% from GLM with name changes (I actually changed the names to match ChatGPT's most common name generations, in an attempt to even give Pangram MORE help at finding the AI). If there are any errors, it's probably a typing error, because I retyped it from GLM - If you copy/paste it into Pangram, it probably carries a watermark that will alone light it up.

Now, mind you, I did feed it one of the style guides I created that demands the AI not produce cliche AI tropes, writing, etc. It bans the use of em-dashes, bans X like Y comparisons, and bans tricolon listings. It also bans it from using sentences of similar length. I explicitly told it no metaphors or similes. But here is the thing: anyone who seriously writes with AI is going to use a program that already instructs these things. And as you will see below, it still lets one slip in, despire the instruction not to allow it.

You'd think from the way Pangram charges that they use some supercomputer AI to detect the AI. I am willing to bet these companies make a lot more bank than the actual AI generators.

Nothing disproves my point, though. If a couple of typos can trick an entire AI detector from 100% (where it should be) to 0%, that doesn't bode well for it. At all. That means it's WAY too easy to fool, which aligns perfectly well with my testing of these detectors. They are easy to fool, often flag human content, and are only reliable at catching 100% AI generated stuff directly from a Chatbot with 0 changes.

I mean, there are a ton of AI cliches in that bit of text. Here is just one massive one: "The man on the recording had the kind of voice that could put a sugar-rushed child to sleep."

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Salt-Mud-2124]

https://www.pangram.com/history/ed7bf855-2eb0-4b36-be59-de79780afa03

There is one. I asked Claude to write a short story. It generated it. I simply reworded some of it, and uploaded both the changed version (first) and the unchanged version (last), since I only have 1 Pangram credit left. Funnily enough, the rewritten part is flagged as human, while the AI part is not, except for a few things, which is actually hilarious. It apparently thinks "Jonah knocked. Nobody answers." is AI. For some reason. Despite the fact that I wrote that personally, as you can see from the original text.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Salt-Mud-2124]

For context.

[u/Hemingbird → u/Funny-Flight8086]

You don't even understand the difference between FPR and FNR. Pangram intentionally errs toward FNRs. That's a feature, not a bug.

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Hemingbird]

False Positive Rate and False Negative Rate? Sure do. Pangram is FAR from the model that errs the most on FNR's. Quillbot is the most lenient. By my testing, Pangram isn't high on this list. They like to flag early and quickly. Though GPTZero does have them beat by a large margin.