Search

Showing top 103 results for "AI text detectability" · from 107 indexed matches

People also ask

Does Pangram work?

Spero said roughly one in 10,000 human documents are incorrectly labeled as AI with Pangram’s model, so I decided to put it to the test. The text detection model was very impressive but not perfect. It easily flagged entirely AI-generated news articles written by both ChatGPT and Claude, and was rarely fooled by my attempts to edit the AI-generated text into sounding more human. However, Pangram did flag sentences that I completely rewrote as being AI-written. Pangram also wasn’t at all fooled by my attempts to prompt ChatGPT and Claude into evading AI detectors when generating content.   I al

As AI content floods the internet, Pangram raises $9M to detect it | TechCrunch
What about false positives?

In his announcement, Best admitted that the AI detection tool is “not perfect,” but cited independent research that found Pangram’s software was 97.5% accurate in detecting fully generated AI text. The University of Maryland found that Pangram was 99.3% accurate in identifying “humanized AI-generated text,” which basically means a human has rewritten or paraphrased AI content. Substack writers who do not use AI are understandably concerned about being incorrectly labeled as AI-assisted authors. As a result, the risk of false positives is a significant issue. Substack said creators can scan the

I Test-Drove Substack’s New AI Detection Tool, and It Mostly Worked - CNET

Top stories

Discussions and forums