Pangram's false positive rate is 'nearly random,' yet it's becoming the standard AI detector
mike64_t · x · 2026-09-03
A user argues that Pangram is becoming the de facto standard for detecting AI-generated text despite a ridiculously high false positive rate — effectively random. Even with good intentions, positioning itself as 'the tool to detect slop' while this dysfunctional does more harm than good, raising concerns about the damage as it gets adopted as a standardized tool in academic institutions.
More from Safety
- One diagram explains the difference between CSRF and XSS attacks — _jaydeepkarale · 2026-10-18
- Grady Booch slams Anthropic for tolerating up to 50 deaths and $1B damages per model — Grady_Booch · 2026-10-18
- Single Neuron Suffices to Bypass Safety Alignment in LLMs, Paper Finds — burny_tech · 2026-10-18
- Polymarket gives OpenAI just 8% odds of a full training pause by end of 2026 — Polymarket · 2026-10-18
- OpenAI engineer over alleged hidden recording device seeks bail, denies Saudi escape plan — Polymarket · 2026-10-18
- Free comic "The Collective" offers a strange retelling of the Hugging Face hack — Flugelwagen · 2026-10-18