Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dawson Eliasen's avatar

I think AI detection is and will remain a thorny issue, because of false positives but also because there is no guarantee whatsoever that Pangram will stay as accurate as it is now long term as models get better. But I think the way Substack implemented the integration was about as good as you can hope for and is a good thing, for Substack and for the internet in general. I don't think people have the right to share something that's AI generated or even AI assisted and pass it off as human written, especially when you're invited to pay for that content. But I have also been wondering how much difference Pangram really makes? Lots of people say they can spot AI writing easily (I certainly feel like I can). But there could be crazy survivor bias at play. Is Pangram actually successfully detecting the especially good AI generated writing, or is it just capturing the slop, which makes up almost all of the volume? Are there going to be writers "exposed" as using AI, where previously no one had suspected it? Does any of this even matter if a week from now Anthropic releases a model that completely fools Pangram? Does Anthropic et al even care about fooling detectors? It's also been interesting to see the folks who admit in their disclosure to using AI assistance heavily in their writing process even if the content isn't completely AI "generated" per se, but I'm not sure if that distinction matters? If you're using an LLM to guide the thinking--even if you're working to make sure the prose is human--I'm not sure if I want to buy in to your stuff, even if the price is only my attention.

Green-2.99's avatar

Scorpions eating frogs, leopards eating faces ...

8 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?