Post

These detectors have been debunked for a while now. I think that false positives are the point, actually. To further muddy the waters.

There is something horrifically ironic about being given ai generated suggestions to avoid ai checkers

(Your response, that is)

As someone who uses like a lot (I think), this makes me cringe. Yeah AI slop machine, feed me more easily digestible text, in case my readers are stupid. I dunno, that suggestion feels insulting.

Do you have specific examples of agents or publishers using it? I'd love to share with anyone in the industry my specific experience with informing Originality about serious and ridiculously broken false positives and them doubling down on them.

yes and they don't even work

That's why I only fed it a 300-word sample (the recommended minimum length as per their own guidelines) :)

It puts in to question other serious questions. Academic credentials nowadays should have an Asterix with people that earn their degrees before AI or after especially when there was a thesis involved. 

Building these on the gateway side, this tracks. Detectors read surface stats, never intent. So they flag a human who writes in fragments and pass a model parroting a clean template. The real lever isn't 'human vs AI', it's verifiability: sources + a trace you can audit.

I've had the em dash beaten into me through high school, lots of older books (like Lem) and then additionally through my university where Chicago Style was law. seeing people assume that using the em dash is a surefire, 100%, never-miss way to identify AI writing kills me inside every time.

Interesting that the publishers/editors can’t just read the copy and decided for themselves, but I guess that would take too much time. Slop machines are ok for them but not for anyone else I guess.

Per my other comment, Pangram was also the ONLY one mentioned in the two canceled book deals and the other major accusation. They're built in a completely different way, and I think it's really important to know of any examples of false positives there vs. the super explicitly scammy ones!

Oh originality is EXPLICITLY a massive scam/fraud. I told them they have basically built an em dash detector a year ago after a similar result (fully human-written chapter flagging as 90%+ AI, switching four natural em dashes to commas over 1,000+ words changed it by over 40%).

Yikes, Yare! This is both disturbing and annoying.

Despite being constantly called "intelligent", it is bitter LLMs don't go much further than keyword searches. Also, old MSWord had this "AutoSummary", basically just selecting a number of complete sentences from original. Worked poorly to fairly well (like LLMs), probably with 0.001% consumption.

I think something that needs said as well is that they're slop machines that are guided initially by human intent. A HUMAN undoubtedly set up the training to make it highly suspicious of things like em dashes, because right now it's trendy to point to them as a signature of AI.

holy wtf this is wild thanks for sharing this, Yaro!

Plenty of people who are otherwise aware of just how fallible generative AI is just completely forget that when they're asking generative AI if something is generative AI. -.-

the AI 'suggestion' doesn't even make any damn sense and loses all emotional context. like damn.

And leave one with uninteresting sponsors reading (not the OP’s writing, of course)

Sorry, I meant in the AI version. Your original was absolutely fine and so much better than the suggested rewrite.