Understand this story
On October 23, 2026, Rohan Paul raised criticism, satirizing those who claim that "model outputs must be verified" yet treat detector outputs as final conclusions. He cited a post by Peyman Milanfar that criticized people for treating the AI detector Pangram as an infallible authority, using the probabilities it gives to humiliate others, and pointed out that Pangram cannot distinguish between "human-written text later edited by AI" and text "generated entirely from a prompt." Currently this criticism was published by Rohan Paul himself, and there are no follow-up developments from other independent sources.
AI-generated from public reports
Latest development · Report
Rohan Paul criticizes blind trust in the AI detector PangramDevelopments
1 confirmed developments
- Source:Rohan Paul
Reports and discussion timeline
Browse reports and discussion by time. Their evidence levels remain distinct.
Oct 23
Rohan Paul
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."