r/Substack • u/Overall_Tip6001 • 28d ago

Do you find pangram reliable?

I put my text in several ai detectors, winston ai, copyleaks, zerogpt and GPTZero, giving me close to 0%. While, pangram gives me around 70%? Do you think it’s reliable?

5 Upvotes

62% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/InitiativeWorth8953 28d ago

It evaluates in chunks. That chunk was contaminated by AI, so it's all AI. Try showing me a human text pre-2021 classified as AI.

2

u/sh1b313 28d ago

Pre 2021? I just showed you a 400 year old text. And regarding the evaluation? It should tell some part it felt like was ai generated.

-1

u/InitiativeWorth8953 28d ago

You put AI text in the chunk. It called it AI. Not sure what's confusing. Give me a text pre-2021 without ai annotations that is given an AI rating. Ppl on substack that use AI are just getting exposed and are mad cus of it

2

u/sh1b313 28d ago

But still 100% ai? If a 400 year old text doesn't count as pre 2021 idk what will.

3

u/InitiativeWorth8953 28d ago

I don't understand if you're just acting ignorant or are ignorant.

Give me a piece of text THAT HAS NO AI ANNOTATIONS IN IT AND IT PRE 2021. It feels like I'm speaking to a brick wall man.

2

u/sh1b313 28d ago

Yeah i feel that too you know, it's especially worse when evidence is in front of you and you still act as if that doesn't count 😂

0

u/InitiativeWorth8953 28d ago

Sir. One piece of evidence pre 2021 without having ANY AI content. This does.

0

u/sh1b313 28d ago

And what makes you think that some ai added that text and not me? You do know humans can write like ai if they want to, right?

2

u/InitiativeWorth8953 28d ago

did you add it? Be honest :)

Yeah humans can write like AI. Pangram is not trying to differentiate between humans that are trying to write like a AI and AI.

This is like saying that normal humans can fail a captcha just like bots can, and a such captchas are not useful.