Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Aug 13
Pangram Flags AI Text With Near-Perfect Accuracy in $20-a-Month Test
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Aug 13

Pangram Flags AI Text With Near-Perfect Accuracy in $20-a-Month Test

3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Aug 13

Summary

  • A week of hands-on tests found Pangram consistently separated chatbot-written text from human writing, including personal essays, imitation prompts and suspected AI posts from LinkedIn and Reddit.
  • The $20-a-month tool assigns a percentage score for how likely text was generated by a bot, and the reviewer said it did not miss in dozens of trials.
  • Pangram says it identifies AI-generated text 9,999 times out of 10,000, while a University of Chicago study also found the detector was near-perfect with text.
  • That accuracy stands out because earlier AI detectors often made glaring mistakes, including falsely labeling work by authors such as Charles Dickens.
  • The appeal comes as some studies estimate 50% of online articles are AI-generated, though Pangram still struggles to detect AI-made images, a bigger misinformation risk.

Insights

With platforms flooded by AI posts, can a new $20 tool truly save the internet from machine-generated slop?
As AI text detection improves, will writers be forced to change their natural style just to prove they are human?
If an AI detector claims near-perfect accuracy, who pays the price when its secret algorithm makes a mistake?