Introducing Pangram Image 1.0(www.pangram.com)
56 pointsby gmays6 hours ago8 comments
  • sean_pedersenan hour ago
    An ill advised undertaking IMO: Any attempt to build AI generated content detection systems is flawed, since the outputs of such a system may be used to train an even better fake data generator. This leads to an equilibrium state of digital uncertainty: nothing in the digital realm can be deemed as real anymore - only as digital.
    • zeroonetwothreean hour ago
      How is that a downside exactly? If we can’t tell then we are no worse off.
  • hex4def62 hours ago
    At least on gemini generated images vs real ones, it works surprisingly well.

    Taking a photo of an AI generated image on my grubby laptop screen with my phone, moire and all, still got detected. So the signal it's using is pretty robust.

  • alkonaut2 hours ago
    Can’t these detectors be used in the training loop of models?
    • JacobAsmuth2 hours ago
      People have tried it, it doesn't work.
      • bobajeffan hour ago
        Which people? I'm no AI researcher but I believe basically all GANs employ a discriminator which basically to me it sounds like this is.
        • dwohnitmok27 minutes ago
          I don't know about Pangram's viability as a discriminator but I can tell you as someone who has recreationally trained GANs that they're really really finicky to train and training fails in all sorts of inscrutable ways. It wouldn't surprise me if even though in theory you could do a GAN-style form of training with Pangram, in practice it might actually be very difficult.
    • XTXinverseXTYan hour ago
      In theory yes, but likely not economical for the slop arbitrageur

      It is not a lucrative business and they are not clever people to begin with

  • my0024 hours ago
    People often shit on AI detectors but Pangram's text AI detection has been very good, IME. Not perfect, but good enough to be useful in most circumstances.
    • jszymborskian hour ago
      My trouble with Pangram is that the calibration is totally off. It can tell you if there is a drop or an ocean of AI in the text you submit. The "X% of AI" message doesn't really mean much. You can test this yourself: Slowly add generated text to a human write paragraph and you'll see it hit "100% AI" quite quickly.
      • Matticus_Rex31 minutes ago
        It analyzes in segments, and the percentage is of the segments, not of the words.
      • jrhizoran hour ago
        Good?
  • xnx3 hours ago
    I'm very skeptical of AI detection and watermarking for text (especially short passages), but AI detection for images and videos seems much more plausible (for now at least).

    I would love if Meta licensed this tech to use for everything on Facebook, Instagram, and Whatsapp. Including ads!

    • JacobAsmuth2 hours ago
      You should look at the data. Look at the actual measurements on the accuracy of Pangram's V4 detection model. Try to fool it. It's not easy at all.
      • zeroonetwothree43 minutes ago
        It’s often inaccurate with short text. For example it has flagged text I wrote by hand with no AI input or editing.

        But I agree it’s good for longer text of 1000+ words.

    • mediaman2 hours ago
      Why are you so skeptical of text detection?

      Do you believe it generally doesn't work or do you believe that if you work at it you can evade them and therefore there's no point to it?

  • 74948494i42 hours ago
    What’s the use case for these things?
    • tantalor2 hours ago
      A few likely use cases,

      1. Social media moderation. You want to limit the proliferation of this stuff because it annoys users.

      2. Trades where authenticity matters, like journalism, law, education. You have to weed out the crap and people will try to deceive you.

    • poszlem2 hours ago
      What's the use case for knowing when you are looking at a fake AI image and not at a real photo? Is that seriously your question?
  • leothetechguyan hour ago
    Awesome research like this restores my faith in humanity.
  • paulpauper2 hours ago
    just compress it? lossy should fool detection