Yes? The author is very clear in the blog post about having used AI very heavily:

Up until now you have been reading the words of Anthropic’s Claude, in particular Fable 5. In part, this is because I simply could not have written this piece. ... Although it might seem strange I thought it wrong to impose too much upon the machine, changing its voice to emulate mine. Richard Sutton’s bitter lesson would likely advise as much. Instead it has its unique voice, grating to some perhaps but altogether fitting that it should be able to keep it, and I only gave it advice on what considerations during writing would bridge the gap between its understanding and that of a reader.

	▲	ekelsen 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know if putting a disclaimer at the very end of the blog, that you also disclaim, should be considered "very clear". "Here is, for those that have read this far, the acknowledgements that used to be in the formal paper but we decided to remove it, mostly because the paper has been reworked and rewritten so many times by us."

▲

estearum 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It may well be, but also Pangram is ridiculously transparent pseudoscience. Let's not play pretend that it's authoritative, please.

Edit: Just for fun I just defeated it with AI-generated text that it reported as 100% human-written. Great stuff. Truly genius scam.

▲

ekelsen 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text.

The only counter example is when a human composed a piece deliberately trying to mimic AI slop.

So call it an AI slop detector if you want, but either way it accurately identifies stuff I don't wan't to read.

	▲	estearum 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text. Is that the level of sensitivity we're looking for? More than literally 0%? Do you know how crazy it'd be to achieve that, even if they were trying to?

▲

snitty 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

What were the text, your prompt, and model?

▲

estearum 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It was actual work output I generated a few weeks back with Sonnet 5. Not posting here for obvious reasons, but it was nothing special or engineered for Pangram deception.

	▲	ekelsen an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The real reason being that it doesn't exist?

▲

porridgeraisin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It is not pseudoscience. Have you read about how it works?

▲

estearum 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, quite a bit actually. It's directly analogous to e.g. "Red sky at night, sailors' delight", i.e. a pseudo-scientific approach that probably has a better-than-random success rate.

▲

robotresearcher 3 hours ago | parent [-]

So it’s a heuristic. Lots of very valuable heuristics exist.

	▲	estearum 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		None of which is authoritative, per my initial comment.
	▲	Tostino an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		And I'd agree if that's what GP said.