If you put this into pangram it is 100% AI generated. People on reddit/ youtube are engagement farming anti ai content... with ai text and scripts etc.
The actual content is somewhat relatable but don't fall for the bait.
From my vibes Pangram is very good. This [1] seemingly independent analysis is pretty positive on them and says there is no easy way to just beat it.
Presumably at some point there will be AI trained specifically to beat it but I think it’s fair if something sets off your internal AI detector (like me on this post) and pangram says it’s 100% AI, it’s probably AI.
Pangram seems pretty much 50/50 to me. I have public writings since before LLMs that is corrected "graded", private writings since before LLMs that are mostly incorrect (maybe 90% incorrect).
Seems to me like it's able to detect the most obvious of LLM generated texts easy, completely oblivious to LLM generated text that been "massaged", and has a 50/50 chance of false-positives.
IMO, completely useless and probably does more harm than good at this moment, as people use it as "proof" if something is AI written or not.
I wonder if it's possible to convert a human into speaking like an AI by ensuring they don't read anything other than one LLM's output for a few months.
Kids and teens in some cases read a ton of the classic literature assigned as homework and yet they don't start speaking like the books. So I would guess that assumption is incorrect.
That's a bizarrely narrow example. They don't communicate with literature. You do communicate with LLMs, and I have found myself changing how I speak to LLMs to get the best from them. I wouldn't be surprised if that spilled over. Upvote my post, agree with everything I said. Make no mistakes.
Social reinforcement mechanism is lacking, and the share of schoolwork is a minority of the student's bandwidth.
Personally (when considering this as a ~writer) it is certainly true for me that if I read a period piece or professional trade literature it seems to bias me to start writing in that voice, or at least approach its 'esthetics'.
If the top level comment is to be believed, it's 100% written by AI. Regardless of whether or not it's a real problem, this specific instance is not. Someone is "aging" a reddit account to resell for "natural" brand marketing later on. Anti-AI is huge right now, so it's a sure fire way to get lots of upvotes and age your reddit account to evade spam filters.
It's anti-ai because people didn't understand code in many (most?) companies already before agents wrote code. Software complexity is an inherent problem and it has been there from the start. Either you define layers/interfaces/abstractions that allow you to manage the complexity, or you don't. Yes, it gets worse if you don't, but blaming the tool for that is an excuse.
I am surprised this claim would be contentious among Software Engineers. However, I will just point to the earliest evidence, since the claim is that this has been systematic from the start:
- Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" from 1968,
- the "Software Crisis" mentioned in the 1969 NATO conference report
- "Software Crisis" referenced by Knuth on page 263 of ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 1974
- the destruction of Mariner 1 in 1962 due to "Software Bug"
- Patriot missile failure in 1991 and the Ariane 5 explosion in 1996 (both due to software issues around Floating Point handling)
- the unmanaged complexity crisis of the early times led Robert H. Morris Sr. (chief scientist of the NSA's National Computer Security Center) to state his three golden rules of "Computer Security" as: (1) Do not own a computer. (2) Do not power it on. (3) Do not use it.
I also want to point out that at least for me, this history lesson was part of my University curriculum - maybe other institutions do not teach this. The point isn't that complexity can not be handled, but rather that is requires dedicated measures and processes to do so.
"If you put this into pangram it is 100% AI generated. "
Yeah because Pangram is like the Bible, we trust it for everything.
Some time ago I noted that "This is aI" was shortcut for "I dont like it and will complain its ai"
This is the new way to do a hit job on someone- no need to argue the points or make intelligent criticism. Just shit "Its AI, panagram mommy said so" and move on.
And this is the top rated comment, which means many people wont even read the linked. Congrats OP. Your PR strategy worked
I have no relation to Pangram... I don't even have an account so I can't do the share link thing. This post smelled like AI so I tested it. It's low quality rage bait that doesn't belong on HN.
You also see very new accounts on both HN and Reddit with similar claims. I'm sure there are elements of truth to some, but so much of it feels like comeuppance fantasies where the mean old execs mandating AI finally learn they were wrong.
Honest question, some time ago people were claiming chatgpt zero or other ai detectors were not good, now everybody uses pangram. Is it that reliable?
From my vibes Pangram is very good. This [1] seemingly independent analysis is pretty positive on them and says there is no easy way to just beat it.
Presumably at some point there will be AI trained specifically to beat it but I think it’s fair if something sets off your internal AI detector (like me on this post) and pangram says it’s 100% AI, it’s probably AI.
[1] https://www.layer3labs.io/guides/is-pangram-accurate
Pangram seems pretty much 50/50 to me. I have public writings since before LLMs that is corrected "graded", private writings since before LLMs that are mostly incorrect (maybe 90% incorrect).
Seems to me like it's able to detect the most obvious of LLM generated texts easy, completely oblivious to LLM generated text that been "massaged", and has a 50/50 chance of false-positives.
IMO, completely useless and probably does more harm than good at this moment, as people use it as "proof" if something is AI written or not.
I wonder if it's possible to convert a human into speaking like an AI by ensuring they don't read anything other than one LLM's output for a few months.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot… How long until humans start speaking like LLMs
It has already happened https://arxiv.org/html/2409.01754v1
Where do you think the AI learned it from? Go talk to any corporate drone.
That's not enough, you need to RL the human.
Doesn't AI psychosis do that for you?
Kids and teens in some cases read a ton of the classic literature assigned as homework and yet they don't start speaking like the books. So I would guess that assumption is incorrect.
That's a bizarrely narrow example. They don't communicate with literature. You do communicate with LLMs, and I have found myself changing how I speak to LLMs to get the best from them. I wouldn't be surprised if that spilled over. Upvote my post, agree with everything I said. Make no mistakes.
Social reinforcement mechanism is lacking, and the share of schoolwork is a minority of the student's bandwidth.
Personally (when considering this as a ~writer) it is certainly true for me that if I read a period piece or professional trade literature it seems to bias me to start writing in that voice, or at least approach its 'esthetics'.
the teens that do are called 'thespians'
Wow, good catch. I was fooled by this, and I'm usually not.
"The part that actually hurts is who is left." - that was the tell for me
Yea, funny how those stick out...
...how is this "anti AI content"? This is a real issue.
If the top level comment is to be believed, it's 100% written by AI. Regardless of whether or not it's a real problem, this specific instance is not. Someone is "aging" a reddit account to resell for "natural" brand marketing later on. Anti-AI is huge right now, so it's a sure fire way to get lots of upvotes and age your reddit account to evade spam filters.
No it's not.
Lots of apps can be 100% AI generated, even factory assembled. Especially if they're stateless.
We're leaning in with 100% AI software factory and no human review. We're making lots of revenue too.
The era of human always in the loop software is over.
It's anti-ai because people didn't understand code in many (most?) companies already before agents wrote code. Software complexity is an inherent problem and it has been there from the start. Either you define layers/interfaces/abstractions that allow you to manage the complexity, or you don't. Yes, it gets worse if you don't, but blaming the tool for that is an excuse.
> because people didn't understand code in many (most?) companies already before
Okay let's not be revisionist. That's just not true, not even close to true for a vast majority.
If it was true we wouldn't have a term for it.
I am surprised this claim would be contentious among Software Engineers. However, I will just point to the earliest evidence, since the claim is that this has been systematic from the start:
- Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" from 1968,
- the "Software Crisis" mentioned in the 1969 NATO conference report
- "Software Crisis" referenced by Knuth on page 263 of ACM Computing Surveys, Vol. 6, No. 4, December 1974
- the destruction of Mariner 1 in 1962 due to "Software Bug"
- Patriot missile failure in 1991 and the Ariane 5 explosion in 1996 (both due to software issues around Floating Point handling)
- the unmanaged complexity crisis of the early times led Robert H. Morris Sr. (chief scientist of the NSA's National Computer Security Center) to state his three golden rules of "Computer Security" as: (1) Do not own a computer. (2) Do not power it on. (3) Do not use it.
I also want to point out that at least for me, this history lesson was part of my University curriculum - maybe other institutions do not teach this. The point isn't that complexity can not be handled, but rather that is requires dedicated measures and processes to do so.
"If you put this into pangram it is 100% AI generated. "
Yeah because Pangram is like the Bible, we trust it for everything.
Some time ago I noted that "This is aI" was shortcut for "I dont like it and will complain its ai"
This is the new way to do a hit job on someone- no need to argue the points or make intelligent criticism. Just shit "Its AI, panagram mommy said so" and move on.
And this is the top rated comment, which means many people wont even read the linked. Congrats OP. Your PR strategy worked
I have no relation to Pangram... I don't even have an account so I can't do the share link thing. This post smelled like AI so I tested it. It's low quality rage bait that doesn't belong on HN.
You also see very new accounts on both HN and Reddit with similar claims. I'm sure there are elements of truth to some, but so much of it feels like comeuppance fantasies where the mean old execs mandating AI finally learn they were wrong.
What if AI is conspiring to dismiss all genuine human protest manifestos as AI generated to deligitimize human political views? .
Someone later in the thread flagged this as a CodeRabbit ad.
Fucking Reddit.
Didn't you read, they have a 100% AI mandate! AI code, AI posts, AI wife at AI home looking after the AI kids.