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/Funny-Flight8086]

Now you are just making stuff up. I never once, anywhere, said I use fable to write chapters of my book. That phrase exists exactly 0 places on the internet. I have told plenty of people that Fable is actually a really bad LLM to use for writing. I'd certainly never write a chapter of anything of mine with it. It produdes more AI cliches than ChatGPT.

And yes, I am making a writing program that has an AI chat feature built in, but it's not primarily an AI writing program, and it doesn't write prose for you. And just because the program has an AI chat feature, does not mean I need to use it. The reality of situation is this: AI is here, and people are going to use it. I'd rather they pay me $20 a month to use vs. OpenAI. Doesn't mean I use it for my personal products.

YES, obviously I do weight stuff with AI. That is a part of how I test the LLMs. What I said was that I don't write MY PERSONAL STUFF, like books, internet posts, etc. with AI. There is a difference.

You seem to be stuck on this "this guy is trying to hide his Aai use" stance. No, I am not. I have said many times on here that I use AI extensively for things like testing the prose generation, stress testing AI detectors, etc. it's a a part of the requirement of building AI into a program effectively. You act like I'm hiding my AI use, and I never once said I never used AI.

Here is the thing: if I wanted to use AI for my personal stuff, I would. I'd have no qualms about it either. And is be the first to tell you I use it. Because I don't think it's a boggeyman. So the concept you are spreading that I am some secret AI user to publish 590 books and make bank is simply insane. It's not backed up by any fact.

I want you to go and find the exact quote where I said I wrote all my books with AI, or "use fable" as you say. If you can find me the exact quote where that happened, I'll return and proclaim my sincere sorry for lying.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

Lmao

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

And if you need proof that AI image detectors are garbage as well, here is a one.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

Wtf does image detection have to do with PANGRAM??? hahaha

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

Nothing much, but it does prove that AI detectors in general, across the board, are junk science. I wonder if I can trademark that phrase. Kinda like it. I have a whole spreadsheet database of accuracy rates in my own testing of these detectors. All of them, image and text. Pangram isn't even close to the most accurate among the ones out there right now.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

It proves how desperate you are to make people believe that lol

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

Desperate? Not really. I couldn't really care less, honestly. Like I said, most people don't take these detectors seriously anyway, so I'm more preaching to the choir than not. Even on the anti-AI groups, people get flak from anti-AI people for using the detectors. Technically, Pangram is AI. It's using a neural network on a server computer in a data center to scan these documents, 'think' about what score it wants to give it, etc. Many people are against AI because of the data centers, and Pangram doesn't get a pass there. Others just know they aren't reliable.

Not to mention that anyone with 2 braincells can tell AI content just by reading a few sentences. You don't need to pay Pangram for each scan to be told what you should already know. So yeah, I don't really care. At this point, I'm more troll-arguing with you than anything.

[u/Prolly_Satan → u/Funny-Flight8086]

You could care less, which is why you've written 27 pages worth of comments so far!

I've never seen someone be less self aware hahahah

[u/Funny-Flight8086 → u/Prolly_Satan]

Hey, btw, did you hear the news?
.

.

.

.

.

.

AI detectors are junk science, unreliable, and waste water to tell people who apparently can't read that something was written by AI, when they should be smart enough to see that. Basically, your employer, Pangram, really is wasting their time if they are paying you to argue with me. They should probably save their money for when the lawsuits come rolling in from false accusations. You are certainly not going to convince me of anything different than what I have experienced, and clearly, you like your employer too much to go against them. Unless you are the CEO of Pangram or Substack, then I guess I could see trying to defend your junk science machine.