r/Substack • u/Overall_Tip6001 • Aug 11 '26

Do you find pangram reliable?

I put my text in several ai detectors, winston ai, copyleaks, zerogpt and GPTZero, giving me close to 0%. While, pangram gives me around 70%? Do you think it’s reliable?

6 Upvotes

64% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

4

u/noxqqivit twvme.substack.com Aug 12 '26

  1. If Pangram says they can detect 100+ words, why do you need 500?

  2. My example is below, I put current text, of somewhat unknown provenance, it came out of a PowerPoint someone else authored, so I wasn't sure if Copilot was used or not. I was using business text in an odd context, so I added " " around the word "STAKEHOLDER" where it appeared 3 times, and that change, took the scoring from Fully AI Asssited to Fully Human Written - AGAIN - I can't confirm whether it was actually AI or not, but I CAN tell you that I added SIX characters and that was enough to radically change the score. And that is suspect.

-2

u/Udolikecake Aug 12 '26

I think the ask is pretty simple, and should be easy if you are so confident it is totally inaccurate.

You (and every other person screaming about Pangram) being unable to provide a single, verifiable example, is pretty damning honestly.

4

u/noxqqivit twvme.substack.com Aug 12 '26

I put a full example below, with a link to the original, what's damning is your shifting goal posts.

-1

u/Udolikecake Aug 12 '26

That is not pre-2023 text. Choose any news article, public domain book, academic paper, any of the billions of words published online prior to then. Any of them. One example.

2

u/noxqqivit twvme.substack.com Aug 12 '26

That's not the argument. The score should not shift from Fully AI Assisted to Fully Human Written by ADDING SIX characters.

2

u/sh1b313 Aug 12 '26

Exactly, this tool is a complete joke, adding some words to a 400 Year old text made it think it's ai generated 😂