4 ms·

What were the text, your prompt, and model?

• estearum 24d ago
  It was actual work output I generated a few weeks back with Sonnet 5. Not posting here for obvious reasons, but it was nothing special or engineered for Pangram deception.
  • ekelsen 24d ago
    The real reason being that it doesn't exist?
    • estearum 24d ago
      Ya bro it's totally not possible to defeat a detection system that, in its own marketing on contrived, game-able benchmarks that they created, claims only a 99.6% true negative rate. It has literally never been done. What a hilarious inversion of credulity.
      • ekelsen 24d ago
        So show us the prompt
        • estearum 24d ago
          As stated, it's work product. Not a toy "adversarial prompt," so I won't be posting it here. And as stated, even Pangram's own marketing material claims at least a 0.4% false negative rate on their own contrived corpus. A one in 250 event is hardly even rare. You seem quite defensive about Pangram, and it shows up in a few of your comments. Is there a reason for that? If it's extending to outright denial of Pangram's own stated error rates... sheesh... very weird indeed (unless they're paying you, obviously).
          • ekelsen 24d ago
            What I said is that every time Pangram has said 100% AI, it is 100% something I don't want to read. I don't particularly care if it was written by humans or LLMs. Every time I've asked for evidence from someone who claims something like you do there always seems to be a reason it can't be posted. So it makes one suspicious. Is there no way you can modify your prompt to be shareable?
            • estearum 24d ago
              > I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text. That's another claim you made, which is quite silly. You've never found something that Pangram marks as 0% human and which you deem to be 100% human? Huge gulf. And no, not really. It's copy from fundraising materials. Removing the identifiable portions of it would remove virtually everything, which is perhaps why Pangram didn't flag it?
              • ekelsen 23d ago
                I said it wasn't something I wanted to read. Humans are capable of writing things I don't want to read. Which at this point is starting to include your comments.
                • estearum 23d ago
                  Did you not write the quoted text?
                  • ekelsen 23d ago
                    I did and it's true, but I amended my statement at the top of this thread, which you've ignored. What I wrote is true (it is a claim about my experience), so I'm not sure what you're attacking. I amended my statement to avoid a discussion about the provenance which is not what I actually care about. What I care about is if I want to read it. Humans could theoretically write something in AI voice and if they did, I wouldn't want to read it. I have not seen any examples of human text in LLM style that clearly predate 2023. If you can supply one, that would be incredible evidence. If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.