Rohan Paul criticizes blind trust in the AI detector Pangram
Rohan Paul mocks those who claim that "model outputs must be verified" yet treat the detector's output as a final conclusion. He cites a post by Peyman Milanfar that criticizes people for treating Pangram as an infallible authority, using the probabilities it gives to shame others, and points out that Pangram cannot distinguish between "human-written text later edited by AI" and text "generated entirely from a prompt."
View original postPeople treat Pangram as an infallible oracle. They weaponize its probabilities to shame others by some arbitrary purity standard. The irony is that it’s mostly redundant: obviously AI-generated stuff is already recognizable without it. And for more nuanced writing, Pangram fails to distinguish between text written by a human and edited by AI, vs text that is generated whole-cloth from a prompt. At the end of the day, @pangram ’s goal is about monetizing people’s anxiety about AI - it’s not about protecting creative integrity. They sell a false binary certainty to those gullible enough to ignore probabilities.
View original
People treat Pangram as an infallible oracle. They weaponize its probabilities to shame others by some arbitrary purity standard. The irony is that it’s mostly redundant: obviously AI-generated stuff is already recognizable without it. And for more nuanced writing, Pangram fails to distinguish between text written by a human and edited by AI, vs text that is generated whole-cloth from a prompt. At the end of the day, @pangram ’s goal is about monetizing people’s anxiety about AI - it’s not about protecting creative integrity. They sell a false binary certainty to those gullible enough to ignore probabilities.
Body
The same crowd that says never trust a model’s output without checking will paste a detector’s output as the final word. https://t.co/qK4cfoVBpZ