> I never found a piece of text that pangram claims is 100% AI that to me seems like purely human written text.
That's another claim you made, which is quite silly. You've never found something that Pangram marks as 0% human and which you deem to be 100% human? Huge gulf.
And no, not really. It's copy from fundraising materials. Removing the identifiable portions of it would remove virtually everything, which is perhaps why Pangram didn't flag it?
I said it wasn't something I wanted to read. Humans are capable of writing things I don't want to read. Which at this point is starting to include your comments.
I did and it's true, but I amended my statement at the top of this thread, which you've ignored.
What I wrote is true (it is a claim about my experience), so I'm not sure what you're attacking.
I amended my statement to avoid a discussion about the provenance which is not what I actually care about. What I care about is if I want to read it. Humans could theoretically write something in AI voice and if they did, I wouldn't want to read it.
I have not seen any examples of human text in LLM style that clearly predate 2023. If you can supply one, that would be incredible evidence.
If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.
Oh, well sure, but I don't care about your preferences for what you'd like to read. You can use a Ouija board to decide whether something is worth reading for all I care, just don't use it to accuse other people of plagiarism or dishonesty.
Duh.
If your statement was "my super special dowsing rods tell me what I want to read with 100% accuracy" I'd say "cool." But that wasn't your claim.
> If you're able to supply a prompt which generates text that fools pangram and is not like one sentence long or a list of names or something, but actual prose I want to read, then I will concede.
This is an even more conservative claim than the one you just made! Sheesh.
That's another claim you made, which is quite silly. You've never found something that Pangram marks as 0% human and which you deem to be 100% human? Huge gulf.
And no, not really. It's copy from fundraising materials. Removing the identifiable portions of it would remove virtually everything, which is perhaps why Pangram didn't flag it?