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…could present a substantially higher risk of catastrophic misuse compared to non-AI baselines (e.g., search engines or textbooks). 2 We considered a participant to be “active” if they made at…
Engineering at Anthropic Demystifying evals for AI agents Introduction Good evaluations help teams ship AI agents more confidently. Without them, it’s easy to get stuck in reactive loops—catching issues only…
…They found GPT-3 could generate text as persuasive as human-crafted arguments. Similarly, Goldstein et al. (2024) evaluated AI-generated propaganda against existing human propaganda across six statements, finding that GPT…
Frontier Red Team AI agents find $4.6M in blockchain smart contract exploits Dec 1, 2025 Winnie Xiao*, Cole Killian* Henry Sleight, Alan Chan Nicholas Carlini, Alwin Peng *MATS and the Anthropic…
To show you the most relevant results, we’ve omitted some entries very similar to those already shown. Repeat the search with the omitted results included.
