I recently tried Pangram, created an account, wrote a few lines about how my day went, and it was flagged as likely AI-assisted. It clearly doesn't work.
It's especially bad that they keep insisting that it works very well, because thousands of people will probably end up falsely accused of AI usage as a result.
> If I want to induce a false positive in TSA's airport scanner, I can put a gun-shaped object in my bag. If I want to induce a false positive in Waymo's stop sign detection system, I can paint my own sign and put it up on a pole.
Holy strawman-batman, not only does the founder of Pangram not have a proper response to the actual criticisms, he feels the need to completely make up very different situations to try to illustrate some completely different point... I guess good job of the founder to engage at all, as deBoer does bring up a lot of valid points and criticisms of why people really shouldn't rely on "tools" like Pangram, too bad the founder failed completely at addressing the more serious points, and instead just chose to say "Well, there will be false-positives, what can you do?".
Indeed, that’s not about false positives predominantly. At least for me the key concern is if it’s giving a percentage when it looks like it calculates a Boolean and therefore implies more nuanced analysis than it does. Which explains the nesting behaviour too.
I recently tried Pangram, created an account, wrote a few lines about how my day went, and it was flagged as likely AI-assisted. It clearly doesn't work.
It's especially bad that they keep insisting that it works very well, because thousands of people will probably end up falsely accused of AI usage as a result.
> If I want to induce a false positive in TSA's airport scanner, I can put a gun-shaped object in my bag. If I want to induce a false positive in Waymo's stop sign detection system, I can paint my own sign and put it up on a pole.
Holy strawman-batman, not only does the founder of Pangram not have a proper response to the actual criticisms, he feels the need to completely make up very different situations to try to illustrate some completely different point... I guess good job of the founder to engage at all, as deBoer does bring up a lot of valid points and criticisms of why people really shouldn't rely on "tools" like Pangram, too bad the founder failed completely at addressing the more serious points, and instead just chose to say "Well, there will be false-positives, what can you do?".
Indeed, that’s not about false positives predominantly. At least for me the key concern is if it’s giving a percentage when it looks like it calculates a Boolean and therefore implies more nuanced analysis than it does. Which explains the nesting behaviour too.
Can something be broken that never actually worked?
That is indeed the question. The little bit I tried Pangram, it gave me unpredictable and surprising results.