0 Followers
0 Following
5 Posts

This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup
This is useful, thanks! TIL

The WikiEDU project has some thoughts on this. They found Pangram good enough to detect LLM usage while teaching editors to make their first Wikipedia edits, at least enough to intervene and nudge the student. They didn’t use it punatively or expect authoritative results however. https://wikiedu.org/blog/2026/01/29/generative-ai-and-wikipe...

They found that Pangram suffers from false positives in non-prose contexts like bibliographies, outlines, formatting, etc. The article does not touch on Pangram’s false negatives.

I personally think it’s an intractable problem, but I do feel pangram gives some useful signal, albeit not reliably.

Generative AI and Wikipedia editing: What we learned in 2025

Like many organizations, Wiki Education has grappled with generative AI, its impacts, opportunities, and threats, for several years. As an organization that runs large-scale programs to bring new e…

Wiki Education
For what it’s worth, Pangram thinks this article is fully human-written: https://www.pangram.com/history/f5f68ce9-70ac-4c2b-b0c3-0ca8...
A bug on the dark side of the | Pangram Labs

Does "A bug on the dark side of the " contain AI-generated text? Pangram finds that this document is We believe that this document is fully human-written

What about API calls? What about GitHub trusted CI deploys?

One frustrating thing about these solutions is that they’re great to prevent Claude from breaking a machine, but there’s no pervasive sandbox for third party services

Why is changing one’s mind when confronted with new evidence a negative signifier of reputation for you?