So far, I am deeply unimpressed with Pangram [AI writing detector]. During my testing, it was unable to distinguish AI writing from verified human writing more than half the time. This does not seem trustworthy enough to rely on, by any means.
Furthermore, I think it’s a mistake to introduce the Pangram system this way, ie, built in to the interface as if testing posts for AI content were part of a typical workflow. By promoting Pangram this way, I feel Substack is feeding into the irrational hysteria which already breeds such AI-paranoia across the internet. The impulse to slap the word “slop” onto anything deemed suspicious is the same impulse that creates serious problems for anyone falsely identified.
And what happens to those who are wrongly tagged as “artificial?” In my own tests, I have seen that Pangram’s identification methods are faulty. So there will be people falsely flagged. Will Substack apologize for the witch hunts and ostracism that may derive from using such a broken tool? Somehow, I doubt it.
We should all be focusing on creating new content, not hunting for what may or may not be machine-generated. That’s my two cents.
Leave a Reply