• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
  • HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    AI critics should push for better detection tools, a quoted writer argues

    The writer acknowledges that Pangram can be over-relied on, that a partial-AI flag could be a mistake, and that deliberate effort can defeat it—but argues those limits are a reason to seek better tools.

    DF
    SL
    SH
    4 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    A writer quoted by a user argues that people who dislike both AI and Pangram should advocate for more reliable detection rather than reject detection itself. The writer acknowledges Pangram’s imperfections, including possible mistaken flags and deliberate evasion. But they argue that condemning both AI and efforts to detect it makes it harder for people who write their own text to distinguish themselves—and provides cover for authors who don’t.

    Combined views

    21.2K

    4 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    Combined views

    21.2K

    4 Sources, first seen 23d ago

    201 likes
    23d ago
    first seen 23d ago
    201 likes
    11 comments
    40 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    11 comments
    40 saves
    12 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive——Negative

    Summary

    Not enough discussion yet.

    No sentiment analysis available yet.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    4 Sources

    @sarthakgh.@KelseyTuoc does not hold back: https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-core-anti-pangram-constituency “I’m happy to concede that Pangram is imperfect and possible to over-rely on. If an author’s posts are mostly non-AI and one scans as partially AI, this could be a mistake. It’s also possible to defeat Pangram with intentional effort. If you think we need something more robust and more reliable, fine! But if you don’t like AI and don’t like Pangram, your attitude really ought to be that it’s a shame that our existing tools for AI detection are imperfect, and it’s important to invent better ones. If your stance is instead that AI is evil and so is looking for AI, then ultimately you’re contributing to the sloppification of the internet. You’re making it harder for people who write their own text to distinguish themselves, and providing cover for authors who are definitely not writing their own text.”
    @sethlazarI think this is the thing that people who place lots of emphasis on disclosure are ignoring. Many people who use AI to write (not all people! many) are utterly self-deluded about how much of the work is due to them, and how much to AI. For Neurips position paper track, there were *loads* of declarations along the lines of "all the ideas mine! ai just helped with presentation at the margins" where pangram scores were 100%. And before you ask, we did loads of testing. You don't get a 100% pangram score if ~the whole piece isn't deeply infused with AI-generated phrases (like this very funny quote that @KelseyTuoc uses)
    @DanielleFongRT @austinc3301: I thought this was a joke but no, the writer is citing this quote because it finds it persuasive wrt to pangram being bad…

    4 Sources

    @sarthakgh.@KelseyTuoc does not hold back: https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/the-core-anti-pangram-constituency “I’m happy to concede that Pangram is imperfect and possible to over-rely on. If an author’s posts are mostly non-AI and one scans as partially AI, this could be a mistake. It’s also possible to defeat Pangram with intentional effort. If you think we need something more robust and more reliable, fine! But if you don’t like AI and don’t like Pangram, your attitude really ought to be that it’s a shame that our existing tools for AI detection are imperfect, and it’s important to invent better ones. If your stance is instead that AI is evil and so is looking for AI, then ultimately you’re contributing to the sloppification of the internet. You’re making it harder for people who write their own text to distinguish themselves, and providing cover for authors who are definitely not writing their own text.”
    @sethlazarI think this is the thing that people who place lots of emphasis on disclosure are ignoring. Many people who use AI to write (not all people! many) are utterly self-deluded about how much of the work is due to them, and how much to AI. For Neurips position paper track, there were *loads* of declarations along the lines of "all the ideas mine! ai just helped with presentation at the margins" where pangram scores were 100%. And before you ask, we did loads of testing. You don't get a 100% pangram score if ~the whole piece isn't deeply infused with AI-generated phrases (like this very funny quote that @KelseyTuoc uses)
    @DanielleFongRT @austinc3301: I thought this was a joke but no, the writer is citing this quote because it finds it persuasive wrt to pangram being bad…