Pangram's 15% FPR Claim in Humanizer Study Likely Isn't a True FPR
ScottBarkowski · x · 2026-09-24
ScottBarkowski points out that the study sloppily admits its claimed 15% false positive rate for Pangram (2023-2025) likely isn't a true FPR, while the key finding stands: AI humanizers make AI text hard for Pangram to detect.
paulnovosad replies that FPR/FNR confusion trips people up—being on the ball here requires slightly more analytical thinking than most social media users are prepared to exert, so the confusion persists.
More from Safety
- Using a third-party inference provider with your coding harness hands it shell access to your machine — TheZachMueller · 2026-11-11
- UK universities told to go analogue to stop AI cheating, FT reports — nordicinst · 2026-11-11
- Democrats propose requiring federal permission to train AI models, with up to 20 years in prison — Polymarket · 2026-11-11
- WIRED asks 10 experts what the real AI nightmares are — not Skynet — AINowInstitute · 2026-11-11
- Bill Gates says AI harms may need to be endured first, fueling fears of government control — nikola_mr64990 · 2026-11-11
- Investigator open-sources 100k+ tweets as 120 AI influence accounts get deleted — ZeroStateReflex · 2026-11-11