3 ms·

It's AI. https://www.pangram.com/history/09db86cf-37fb-4b27-94bf-a9f2d4cd2990 https://www.pangram.com/history/09db86cf-37fb-4b27-94bf-a9f2...

• onion2k 3mo ago
  If you switch on the 'Supporting Evidence' on that site, it seems to be basing it's opinion on three things: - Use a descriptive triad of "reviewing, directing, and course" (it incorrectly misunderstood 'course correcting'). That's not common in writing but humans do do it occasionally. - Using the word 'thoughtful'. I don't understand that as evidence of AI. - Using the words 'Book Apart' together, which would be a clear AI signal if it wasn't the name of a publisher of short books, and being used in that context in the article. I don't think you should put much stock in the output of pangram.com.
  • ameliaquining 3mo ago
    Pangram's "Supporting Evidence" feature is misleading and you should ignore it. It's entirely separate from the classifier that determines whether text is AI; it just takes text that's already been classified as AI and looks for some hardcoded AI tells in it. I kind of wish they'd get rid of it, but nontechnical users really like it. The classifier itself has a very low rate of false positives: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2025-116.pdf https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2...
    • onion2k 3mo ago
      It's so tempting to drop the text of that paper into Pangram. :)
  • johnfn 3mo ago
    Pangram clearly says "Remember, our results aren’t based on this evidence." when you turn on supporting evidence.
    • sokoloff 3mo ago
      That’s an unusual use of “supporting” for sure.