原帖引用 · 原文
该语言的正文暂不可用，当前显示已有版本。
Rohan Paul@rohanpaul_ai
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
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.
在 X 查看这条帖子 ↗
· UTC+8