Researcher counters Berkeley law professor's brief with Pangram audit data
A researcher publicly disputed a Berkeley law professor's amicus brief that called AI detector Pangram unreliable, citing audit data from a conference paper to defend the tool's accuracy.
2026-10-31 ~ 2026-10-31 · 2 related posts
- Episode 1: Pangram Flags ChatGPT-Translated Text as AI-Generated While Original Scores 100% Human(2026-10-23, 2 posts)
- Episode 2: Researcher counters Berkeley law professor's brief with Pangram audit data(2026-10-31, 2 posts)
- Episode 3: Professor tests 50 pre-ChatGPT novels, AI detector flags none(2026-10-31, 2 posts)
- Researcher disputes Berkeley law professors' brief over Pangram false-positive claims — TuhinChakr · 2026-10-31
- Researchers push back on Samuelson brief with Pangram audit: 0.04% false positives — TuhinChakr · 2026-10-31