On a personal level, I don't get all this hype of: "Was AI involved or not?"
I am a simple guy. All I want to know boils down to simple questions: Is the story good and the writing serves the story? Are the thoughts/ideas supported by the writing?
It might be a bigger problem in academia, where you have to evaluate if the student has done the thinking, understood the material.
But way back in the 1980s, I had a friend who earned quite some money by writing for his fellow students. So, that problem is not new.
Well, a while back I wrote a piece about the similarities between AI Slop and Kitsch. AI might become its own art form. But the provenance of an art piece is an intrinsic component of its emotional story. Would the Mona Lisa be as important today if its provenance would be not be from the mind of a human artist? I highly doubt it. It would still be the same art piece, just a lot less relevant.
Michael, Jason from Pangram here. I am curious which of your blogs you ran Pangram on that came back Human. I checked your last nine and your top nine, and all of them come back either with significant AI or mixed, including this one.
Is it possible you are running an old model? The offer still stands to give you access to an unlimited trial account to the current model I am running so that you can verify our accuracy.
I used whatever model was current on the day I published that piece. It is very easy to get around any version of Pangram. But the issue is that getting around Pangram makes the writing worse. There really is no point in using AI detection.
I cannot verify what you did or did not see, but it is in fact the case that all of your current posts are detected by Pangram as having AI as you admit, so I cannot verify the error you report. It's true that anyone attempting to bypass detection, with enough skill, might have some success, but when we detect something as having AI, we have a very high success rate with a very low false positive rate. That is something that many readers find valuable and worth it, including myself. As someone who has spent the last 25 years teaching English and Philosophy, I certainly find great epistemological and pedagogical value in knowing whether what I am reading has AI in it or not. Happy to explore the reasons why with you at some point.
If you do not believe me, that’s fine. I do not really care. But there are quite a few people who wrote about how Pangram is misidentifying their human writing as AI generated, which is even worse. If you think you can reliably identify AI written text, you are, quite frankly, completely misguided.
On a personal level, I don't get all this hype of: "Was AI involved or not?"
I am a simple guy. All I want to know boils down to simple questions: Is the story good and the writing serves the story? Are the thoughts/ideas supported by the writing?
It might be a bigger problem in academia, where you have to evaluate if the student has done the thinking, understood the material.
But way back in the 1980s, I had a friend who earned quite some money by writing for his fellow students. So, that problem is not new.
I think provenance is an art thing. I would argue that if you want real art, it needs to be primarily human made.
I disagree on that.
AI does nothing without human input.
The only question that remains is: Is it good? Does it touch me? Does it tell a story?
Well, a while back I wrote a piece about the similarities between AI Slop and Kitsch. AI might become its own art form. But the provenance of an art piece is an intrinsic component of its emotional story. Would the Mona Lisa be as important today if its provenance would be not be from the mind of a human artist? I highly doubt it. It would still be the same art piece, just a lot less relevant.
Michael, Jason from Pangram here. I am curious which of your blogs you ran Pangram on that came back Human. I checked your last nine and your top nine, and all of them come back either with significant AI or mixed, including this one.
Is it possible you are running an old model? The offer still stands to give you access to an unlimited trial account to the current model I am running so that you can verify our accuracy.
I used whatever model was current on the day I published that piece. It is very easy to get around any version of Pangram. But the issue is that getting around Pangram makes the writing worse. There really is no point in using AI detection.
I cannot verify what you did or did not see, but it is in fact the case that all of your current posts are detected by Pangram as having AI as you admit, so I cannot verify the error you report. It's true that anyone attempting to bypass detection, with enough skill, might have some success, but when we detect something as having AI, we have a very high success rate with a very low false positive rate. That is something that many readers find valuable and worth it, including myself. As someone who has spent the last 25 years teaching English and Philosophy, I certainly find great epistemological and pedagogical value in knowing whether what I am reading has AI in it or not. Happy to explore the reasons why with you at some point.
Jason
If you do not believe me, that’s fine. I do not really care. But there are quite a few people who wrote about how Pangram is misidentifying their human writing as AI generated, which is even worse. If you think you can reliably identify AI written text, you are, quite frankly, completely misguided.