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.)

>>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.

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.