Academics warn AI detectors like Pangram miss 90% of multi-agent cheating
IanArawjo · x · 2026-10-22
Economist Barbara Biasi questioned whether academic outrage over Pangram's "AI-positive" results is always warranted. Quoting her, Atoosa Kasirzadeh goes further: AI-generated content in presentations, speaker notes, research ideas, and papers is soaring, and off-the-shelf detectors like Pangram fail to catch the deeper "multi-agent supply chain" cheating happening behind the scenes—she estimates over 90% goes undetected.
She frames the dilemma as genuinely worrying about homogenization of academic thought versus treating this as a mass experiment, hoping for an equilibrium where we benefit from AI without losing authenticity and depth.
Related event: Scholars Clash Over Pangram AI Detector's Reliability and Use in Academia(18 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- lcamtuf: ~70% of infosec punditry is now AI-generated, and he deleted his own old blog over it — joshua_saxe · 2026-10-23
- NYT: What 1931's labor disruption can teach us about AI's impact on work — danielrock · 2026-10-23
- AI researchers clash over whether lab "safety" amounts to coercive control — joshalbrecht · 2026-10-23
- Derya Unutmaz resurfaces 2025 prediction: AI skeptics' critiques won't age well — DeryaTR_ · 2026-10-23
- Only 4% of CIOs have plans for human-agent workforce, report finds — rseroter · 2026-10-23
- Anil Seth wins Berggruen Prize: consciousness is of life, not computation — anilkseth · 2026-10-23