I wouldn't say Pangram is broken, but I would say that it's brittle

It's especially bad that they keep insisting that it works very well, because thousands of people will probably end up falsely accused of AI usage as a result.

And even this isn't perfect, nor is it guaranteed that enterprise and individual accounts are tuned the same way. So students also need to proactively use audit/keystroke logging systems to protect themselves against accusations, which creates a type of "panopticon" on one's early/ephemeral drafts, including language of frustration (who among us hasn't typed curses into an unsaved draft at some point?), that can massively stifle creative thought. And if an institution provides such a tool, their centralized access simply worsens the "panopticon" characteristics.

There's no easy solution, here, sadly.

LLM-generated text does not carry a watermark or other identifying marks. The "theory" is that an LLM trained on human writing, to mimic human writing, can be distinguished from actual human writing in under 100 words.

Notably the first diagram on the research overview page (https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works) shows feedback for "misclassified human examples." This is a category error; Pangram will not find out when it has misclassified text in the wild, except in rare cases. Only the "licensed human-written text" in its training data can be used as feedback.

Scams like Pangram also cause real harms, mostly because laypeople do not understand that what is being offered is not possible. Pangram advertises 99.98% accuracy, and they pitch it as a tool for teachers and universities. Translated: if a college like University of Alabama rolled this out, you could expect ~40 students to have their lives upended by this snake oil, every year. (And how can one even prove that an allegation is false, that they did write a given text?) And this is the best case, using the number on Pangram's homepage.

By analysing a specific piece of prose you probably arent using the same chunk as would otherwise be analysed and can end up with a different result.

Holy strawman-batman, not only does the founder of Pangram not have a proper response to the actual criticisms, he feels the need to completely make up very different situations to try to illustrate some completely different point... I guess good job of the founder to engage at all, as deBoer does bring up a lot of valid points and criticisms of why people really shouldn't rely on "tools" like Pangram, too bad the founder failed completely at addressing the more serious points, and instead just chose to say "Well, there will be false-positives, what can you do?".

And the obvious absolute test that would prove its shit - millions of books and posts written pre-AI would unfortunately be in its training already with some date associated, and thus it would not really detect them, it would just know "x text, written pre 2020".