4 ms·

Pangram sucks

by sam_lowry_ 1mo ago

Pangram sucks

deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
Nition 1mo ago
I've never seen a false positive from Pangram for human-written text of 300+ words.
- sam_lowry_ 1mo ago
  Pangram sucks by seeding fear.
  - zbentley 1mo ago
    Say more? I’ve found it quite useful and not a source of fear. It’s effective at calling out disrespect (human to human communication where one party stops participating as a human), and has been effective for me in writing my own communications more crisply and carefully
    - sam_lowry_ 1mo ago
      Fear of being tagged as AI even if you write the text yourself. For me personally, it's fear to use – and —. I have my versions of XKB keyboard layouts that handily map these but I don't use them anymore. Nor do I use emoji, because some 18-6 months ago AU output abused emoji.
      - zbentley 1mo ago
        I honestly don’t think those are going to get you flagged as mostly-AI or with high confidence. On anything longer than a sentence I’ve found the false positive rate to be perfectly reasonable.
- rob 1mo ago
  Seems like you have now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372618
  - no_multitudes 1mo ago
    People sometimes tell lies on the internet. This is definitely AI-generated.
  - RugnirViking 1mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49377954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49377954
redsocksfan45 1mo ago
[dead]
deleted 1mo ago
[deleted]
DonHopkins 1mo ago
Pangram sucks as much as humans who think they're perfect llm generated text detectors, too. As qarl2 wrote below: >See how perverse this "I hate the way AI sounds" thing is? >In the end everyone accusing everyone of being AI. Which — as we all know — was trained on how humans write. If it's not one thing, it's another... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA&t=205s
no_multitudes 1mo ago
Please give one example of a long-form verifiable non-adversarial pangram false positive (e.g., something written before 2022 that gives a result other than 100% human.)

Pangram sucks

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

Nition 1mo ago

I've never seen a false positive from Pangram for human-written text of 300+ words.

sam_lowry_ 1mo ago
Pangram sucks by seeding fear.
- zbentley 1mo ago
  Say more? I’ve found it quite useful and not a source of fear. It’s effective at calling out disrespect (human to human communication where one party stops participating as a human), and has been effective for me in writing my own communications more crisply and carefully
  - sam_lowry_ 1mo ago
    Fear of being tagged as AI even if you write the text yourself. For me personally, it's fear to use – and —. I have my versions of XKB keyboard layouts that handily map these but I don't use them anymore. Nor do I use emoji, because some 18-6 months ago AU output abused emoji.
    - zbentley 1mo ago
      I honestly don’t think those are going to get you flagged as mostly-AI or with high confidence. On anything longer than a sentence I’ve found the false positive rate to be perfectly reasonable.
rob 1mo ago
Seems like you have now? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372618 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49372618
- no_multitudes 1mo ago
  People sometimes tell lies on the internet. This is definitely AI-generated.
- RugnirViking 1mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49377954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49377954

redsocksfan45 1mo ago

[dead]

deleted 1mo ago

[deleted]

DonHopkins 1mo ago

Pangram sucks as much as humans who think they're perfect llm generated text detectors, too. As qarl2 wrote below: >See how perverse this "I hate the way AI sounds" thing is? >In the end everyone accusing everyone of being AI. Which — as we all know — was trained on how humans write. If it's not one thing, it's another... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k59d-xMvooA&t=205s

no_multitudes 1mo ago

Please give one example of a long-form verifiable non-adversarial pangram false positive (e.g., something written before 2022 that gives a result other than 100% human.)