Researcher disputes Berkeley law professors' brief over Pangram false-positive claims
TuhinChakr · x · 2026-10-31
A neutral brief by Berkeley law professors Pamela Samuelson and C. Sprigman argues copyright "dilution" is unjustified and critiques AI-detection research resting on Pangram. Researcher Tuhin Chakraborty publicly disputes the brief, calling several statements inaccurate.
The brief concedes Chakrabarty et al. "should have but did not test Pangram's false positive rate with books published before generative AI" — a test the author says was actually done, with zero false positives. The brief also cites prior work on temporal distribution shift and AI-polished text confusing detectors, framing the fight as one over what conditions make detector reliability evidence valid.
Related event: Researcher counters Berkeley law professor's brief with Pangram audit data(2 posts)→
More from Safety
- Wired podcast: a contractor's Claude agent got into a Pentagon system — Wired AI · 2026-10-31
- Tyler Alterman on the hacking panic: more Y2K than COVID, use 1Password and update software — jd_pressman · 2026-10-31
- Anthropic's VS Code extension on Cursor backdoored for nearly 12 hours, up to 5,000 devs exposed — Ars Technica AI · 2026-10-31
- Security researcher: vibe coding will force software to consolidate around mature products — jd_pressman · 2026-10-31
- Every Used Codex and Agents to Survive the Railway Credential Breach — every · 2026-10-31
- Researchers debate whether more inference compute can substitute for training compute — teortaxesTex · 2026-10-31