Pangram

“Neither my nose and Pangram are 100% accurate, but when they both get a hit I'm pretty confident.”

“Pangram is, to my knowledge, the only AI checker today that actually passes accuracy assessments.”

“Out of habit I checked with Pangram - which identifies some parts as AI-written. (I think that might be false positives but am not 100% sure.)”

“Considering Pangram's extremely low false positive rate, I'm inclined to believe this was AI written.”

“having 4 of them go through the "computer says you cheated, and as you can see, it's 99.9% accurate" gauntlet is not a price we should be willing to pay for”

“Unfortunately their marketing is really insisting on the former, and trying to push it into the zeitgeist”

“the accuracy figures (99.82% for Opus 5) are the true positive rate rather than a combined metric that factors in the false positive rate”

“they also publish great tech reports. their founder is so confident in their model that he's regularly on social media offering bounties for false positives”

“I think you can't trust Pangram in a high stakes situation, but it is absolutely better than random noise at detecting AI-generated text.”

“Pangram is basically the only AI detector that's actually put in the work to build an accurate classifier”

“pangram does have an extremely low false positive rate, which I think does make it useful for detecting cheating students”

“Pangram links several third party evaluations [1] that all seem to agree with 90+% detection, and very close to 0% false positives.”

“Pangram has a very low false negative rate and relatively high false positive rate for human writing.”

“Pangram is very conservative, and it's not difficult to manually get an LLM generated passage of text to turn human-written.”

“so far I've found it to be pretty reliable, especially since they claim to have a very low false-positive rate”

“It's good enough to be useful, but I absolutely would not be willing to fail a student on the basis of a Pangram positive.”

“Pangram is no panacea, but every time I have tested my own prose, it says it is 100% human written.”

“Their underlying classifier model is pretty accurate in my experience, though, at least in the sense that it has very few natural false positives.”

“every AI detector that gets productized gets as bad as the AI CEOs themselves and starts making claims their products cannot accomplish”

“Had the same taste response, checked and Pangram also says AI. They have very low false positive rate.”

“Should you discipline a student solely on the basis of Pangram output (which is happening in the real world)? Absolutely not.”

“if Pangram is marketing itself as "near-zero false-positives" now, that entails that the are aggressively biasing it towards being conservative”

“If a tool fails the basic test of teacher getting flagged on some text that they wrote personally, that tool should never be used.”

“Of course, it's unclear if the article is using the wrong term, or the wrong definition, or if Pangram is just lying in the first place.”

“if the decision from Pangram determined, on every assignment, if you would be expelled from university for plagiarism, would that be acceptable to you”

“I submitted a few of my papers from grad school (long before LLMs or so-called "AI" existed) and they were flagged as being ~70% AI.”

“I wouldn't trust Pangram too much. I've seen it give "100% LLM-written, high confidence" to multiple 100% human written articles”

“Yes there are studies, for example last year Pangram's false positives were measured to be under 0.5%.”

“I only went to Pangram because I read through the essay and could not help but notice the Claude-like sentence structure”

“if you're already thinking "this is probably AI" and pangram thinks the same, that's fairly damning”

“I've done systematic testing on human and LLM-generated text and I'm confident that the accuracy is higher than 95%”

“I have tried to get false positives from pangram and failed, so I trusted it a bit more than any of the others”

“There've been third-party evaluations of Pangram, e.g., https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2”

“I'm running anything that has the "usual" AI tells through Pangram. Nine times out of ten, the article is 100% AI generated.”

“Pangram achieves essentially zero false positive rates and false negative rates on medium-length to long passages.”

“Your detector did not work well on an AI-collab writing fiction project I did a while ago, tagged it as 100% human even with high confidence for the most part.”

“A quick Google search shows that Pangram's weakness is "false positives on creative writing", and that it's trivially fooled.”

“Pangram is fundamentally different technology, it's a large deep learning based model that is trained on hundreds of millions of human and AI examples.”

“found zero false positives of 1,992 human-written documents and over 99% recall in detecting AI documents”

“I've yet to see a single real Pangram false positive that was provably published when it says it was”