Viewing profile — maxspero

> Sounds promising, right? I spent some time trying [perplexity], but results were disappointing—plenty of false positives and false negatives, and no reasonable threshold could be…

Update: this is actually ZeroBounce’s Verify+ feature which we figured out after some escalation. It’s now disabled!

Follow-up: our vendors have told us that they do not send any emails as part of the validation process. Either somebody is lying, or there's something even weirder going on. We sti…

Hey! Founder of Pangram here. We use Zerobounce and CustomerIO for email validation. I had no idea this was happening. Not entirely sure which one this is coming from, but this is …

Anecdotally people are seeing a rise of low-quality reviews which is correlated with increased reviewer workload and and AI tools giving reviews an easy way out. I don't know of an…

It's definitely going to be a back and forth - model providers like OpenAI want their LLMs to sound human-like. But this is the battle we signed up for, and we think we're more nim…

Pangram is trained on this task as well to add additional signal during training, but it's only ~90% accurate so we don't show the prediction in public-facing results

Thanks, fixed.

Yeah, Pangram does not provide any concrete proof, but it confirms many people's suspicions about their reviews. But it does flag reviews for a human to take a closer look and see …

There are dozens of first generation AI detectors and they all suck. I'm not going to defend them. Most of them use perplexity based methods, which is a decent separators of AI and…

Our benchmarks of public datasets put our FPR roughly around 1 in 10,000. https://www.pangram.com/blog/all-about-false-positives-in-ai... Find me a clean public dataset with no AI …

I am not sure if you are familiar with Pangram (co-founder here) but we are a group of research scientists who have made significant progress in this problem space. If your mental …

Co-founder of Pangram here. Our false positive rate is typically around 1 in 10,000. https://www.pangram.com/blog/all-about-false-positives-in-ai... . We also wanted to quantify ou…

I've been using Grapevine at my company for the last couple weeks. One of the coolest features is that it proactively answers questions (with citations!). Not everyone thinks to ta…

We benchmark on pre-2023 datasets of O(10M) documents not in our training set. Other detectors seem to have between 1-3% false positive rate and ours is around 1 in 10,000 as of ou…

Hey it's me, Max. I ran the analysis for WIRED and got them their initial 47% number for AI content. The CEO accused me of trying to extort him because I sent a short email with ou…

Thanks for trying it out. It's in our roadmap to expand to technical writing (currently trained mostly on creative writing). Hopefully this will fix the wikipedia issue.

I've benchmarked against Originality.ai, gptzero.me, zerogpt, writer.com and copyleaks.com, which are the top 5 AI detectors to my understanding. None of them are very good, so I d…

Thanks for trying it out. Shorter texts with fewer sentences are certainly a challenge - they just have a lot less signal. I tried your prompt asking for ten sentences and got 99.4…

Nice to hear of someone else trying this. Did you find any good ways to reliably trick these? What do you mean "it won't work long term"? My opinion is RLHF and fine tuning outputs…

I don't think it's possible to determine provenance with 100% accuracy, but I think ChatGPT essentially "watermarks" itself with its RLHF, making it more polite and giving its outp…

Have you tried it?

Interesting. In my experience, ChatGPT always says "As an AI language model..." or lately just "Sorry, I can't help with that." Have you seen "As a large language model..." come ou…

Thanks!