| |
| ▲ | gamegoblin 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, it's a false claim | | |
| ▲ | skor 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | how do you know this? let us know please, thanks.
edit, I see you used this to check: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45948220 | | |
| ▲ | gamegoblin 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | pangram.com, the most accurate and lowest false positive AI detector https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals | | |
| ▲ | fuzzy_biscuit 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why does this feel like an ad? I've seen pangram mentioned a few times now, always with that tagline. It feels like a marketing department skulking around comments. | | |
| ▲ | latexr 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Why does this feel like an ad? Because it’s written like a tagline instead of like a sentence people would say to each other. | |
| ▲ | gamegoblin 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The other pangram mention elsewhere in this comment section is also me -- I'm totally unaffiliated with them, just a fan of their tool I specify the accuracy and false positive rate because otherwise skeptics in comment sections might otherwise think it's one of the plethora of other AI detection tools that don't really work | | |
| ▲ | agucova 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | FWIW I work on AI and I also trust Pangram quite a lot (though exclusively on long-form text spanning at least 4 or more paragraphs). I'm pretty sure the book is heavily AI written. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
