Pangram defends its AI detector: false positives measured on test sets, never on full book chapters
cephaloform · x · 2026-09-23
- Pangram's CEO responded to AI-detector false-positive criticism: they report false positive rates on a test set of general internet text plus user-relevant benchmarks, not training scores.
- Admits data drift is a looming problem since people now write more like AI, but says no evidence of elevated false positives on modern text.
- Stresses length matters: real false positives span tweets or paragraphs, but never a full book chapter despite checking many books.
More from Models
- Grok 4.7 flops in 100 multi-agent coding evals despite insightful solutions — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-23
- Will rumored GPT-6 'Sol' actually ship inside ChatGPT? — flowersslop · 2026-09-23
- Claude Opus 5.5 Said to Fall Back on Frontier LLM Dev Tasks, Drawing Fire — basedjensen · 2026-09-23
- Higgsfield demo: Claude Opus 5.5 crushes GPT-6 Astra at 3D game generation — VraserX · 2026-09-23
- User Gives Opus 5.5 Creative Tools and Asks What It Dreams About — angrypenguinPNG · 2026-09-23
- Yuchen Jin: Opus 5.5 underwhelms, frontier LLM coding has plateaued — Yuchenj_UW · 2026-09-23