I think you can't trust Pangram in a high stakes situation, but it is absolutely better than random noise at detecting AI-generated text. Which isn't surprising. If the distribution of probabilities can yield blatant Claudisms, it's not surprising it would also have more subtle deviations.
(Addendum: As I recall, LLM-generated outputs roughly follow Zipf's law, but the distribution still tends to have some subtle distinctions vs human text; pretty interesting, but I don't know where I heard this, so nothing to cite. Sorry.)
Pangram has an extremely low false positive rate. Even on adversarial examples.
One trade-off is even some obviously LLM text won't get detected by them, but they work really hard to ensure false positives are rare since a false accusation is much worse for society than someone getting away with LLM meatpuppetry.
To be honest with you, I don't think I would be able to identify with high certainty that the bottom text is AI generated, so it definitely goes a long way to obscure the AI-generated nature of it, but I also think it still feels unnatural somehow. I realize my framing naturally calls into question whether I'm being honest, but I am being honest. Given my experience with similar "skills" (it's just chunks of prompt, nothing magical after all) I expected even less.
But still, this is all very strange because it wasn't that many generations of AI models ago that AI writing was a lot better - I'm talking GPT 4.1, Claude 4.5, that sort of era.
Anthropic newsroom posts on the other hand are carefully constructed and well-written in a way that I have not seen demonstrated by LLMs yet, past or present. I expect that they have well-paid staff who are careful with every detail of their public communications. When you put it that way, it almost feels unfathomable that they wouldn't, doesn't it?
claiir · · focus · HN ↗
Damn even Nvidia is putting out fully Claude-written articles.
keybrd-intrrpt · · focus · HN ↗
Why "even Nvidia"?
They are fully behind using AI for basically everything.
What's next? "Damn, even McDonald's is putting out unhealthy food"
jchw · · focus · HN ↗
keybrd-intrrpt · · focus · HN ↗
They are just better at hiding it or configuring Claude.
I have several skills that reformat text to remove AI-speak tells.
jchw · · focus · HN ↗
WD-42 · · focus · HN ↗
I put the "humanized" output through Pangram and it still comes out as 100% AI generated.
breezybottom · · focus · HN ↗
jchw · · focus · HN ↗
(Addendum: As I recall, LLM-generated outputs roughly follow Zipf's law, but the distribution still tends to have some subtle distinctions vs human text; pretty interesting, but I don't know where I heard this, so nothing to cite. Sorry.)
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
One trade-off is even some obviously LLM text won't get detected by them, but they work really hard to ensure false positives are rare since a false accusation is much worse for society than someone getting away with LLM meatpuppetry.
jchw · · focus · HN ↗
But still, this is all very strange because it wasn't that many generations of AI models ago that AI writing was a lot better - I'm talking GPT 4.1, Claude 4.5, that sort of era.
Anthropic newsroom posts on the other hand are carefully constructed and well-written in a way that I have not seen demonstrated by LLMs yet, past or present. I expect that they have well-paid staff who are careful with every detail of their public communications. When you put it that way, it almost feels unfathomable that they wouldn't, doesn't it?
sebmellen · · focus · HN ↗