Economist on AI detector Pangram: not a filter, but a useful verification signal
paulnovosad · x · 2026-10-23
Economist Paul Novosad discusses with a reader the limits of Pangram for catching AI cheating in coursework. He agrees the detector is often over-used and over-interpreted — a 100% Pangram score proves nothing, and it shouldn't be used as a hard filter.
Still, he argues some AI cheating is genuinely happening (distinct from routine AI-assisted writing) and ignoring it entirely is the wrong call. His approach: when a submission smells fake in both content and style, he uses Pangram as a verification signal. Attention is limited, so he relies on the signals available — imperfect, but better than looking away.
More from AGI Musings
- Economist Novosad: Pangram scores can't convict AI writing, but help triage suspicion — paulnovosad · 2026-10-23
- Beff Jezos: regulation won't stop internet agents, capability diffusion is safer — beffjezos · 2026-10-23
- AI Now's People's AI Assembly spotlights data center opposition and labor rights — AINowInstitute · 2026-10-23
- VraserX: build an abundance civilization, don't romanticize austerity — VraserX · 2026-10-23
- Kuprel: AI Ends Long Hours but Rewards Precision Decisions at the Right Moment — Kuprel · 2026-10-23
- After data and compute, the next picks-and-shovels are talent and physical infrastructure — philhchen · 2026-10-23