| ▲ | dwa3592 8 hours ago |
| For non-chess players - imagine if Geoffrey hinton used AI detectors (GPT zero, pangram etc) to accuse and punish people of using AI in their writing and bad mouth them publicly. That's what kramnik (former world chess champion) did to Danya and other players. I miss Danya. |
|
| ▲ | wilbur_whateley 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| How did he punish them? |
|
| ▲ | nopinsight 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| To my knowledge, Pangram has a very low false positive rate approaching zero. (False negative is another matter.) I’m not sure that’s what you want to use as the analogy here? (I don’t know much about this Kramnik situation.) |
| |
| ▲ | dwa3592 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >>To my knowledge, pangram has a very low false positive rate approaching zero. (False negative is another matter.) I’m not sure that’s what you want to use as the analogy here? 'To my knowledge' - okay. In my experience, they're all horrible. I have fooled them both ways - ai generated content that they say is purely human and human generated content that they say is partially AI or just AI. | |
| ▲ | TimPC 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pangram’s market claims are very different from independent validations of the platform. The 99.98% rate is on a toy dataset not resembling reality. Even if 2/10000 is true that’s nowhere near accurate enough to make aggressive accusations that create anxiety at levels people need to medicate with potentially fatal consequences. | | |
| ▲ | nopinsight 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Someone also input lots of pre-GPT texts to Pangram and they were all clear. The point is Kramnik’s claims are much weaker and not comparable. |
|
|
