It would seem that it's still possible to tell whether a text has been written by a human.
-2 Nous avons soumis une s|-rie d'extraits du roman de Th|-lyson Or|-lien au logiciel Pangram (dans sa version gratuite) : des passages de longueurs variables, des dialogues comme des descriptions, des paragraphes en fran|oais ou m|-lant le fran|oais |a l'anglais et |a l'espagnol. Dans tous les cas, Pangram affirmait que 100% des mots avaient |-t|- |-crits avec l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle -+ - <https://www.franceinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/l-ecrivain- thelyson-orelien-a-t-il-utilise-l-intelligence-artificielle-pour-ecrire- son-premier-roman-c-etait-ca-ou-mourir_8183894.html>
France Info's 'True or False' group fed samples of Or|-lien's first
novel, 'It was That or Die' into a programme called Pangram, which found that all had been written with the aid of AI.
Studies have found that Pangram is the most reliable such checker,
having a near-zero false positive rate and false negative rate.
<https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-papers/artificial-writing-and- automated-detection/>
How does Pangram work?
<https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works>
(-2 Un peu de lecture, |oa ne peut pas faire de mal -+ - pourvu que le
texte soit d'origine humaine, bien s|+r.)
On 9/23/2026 1:39 PM, Hibou wrote:
It would seem that it's still possible to tell whether a text has been written by a human.
-2 Nous avons soumis une s|-rie d'extraits du roman de Th|-lyson Or|-lien au
logiciel Pangram (dans sa version gratuite) : des passages de longueurs variables, des dialogues comme des descriptions, des paragraphes en fran|oais ou m|-lant le fran|oais |a l'anglais et |a l'espagnol. Dans tous les cas, Pangram affirmait que 100% des mots avaient |-t|- |-crits avec l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle -+ - <https://www.franceinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/l-ecrivain- thelyson-orelien-a-t-il-utilise-l-intelligence-artificielle-pour-ecrire- son-premier-roman-c-etait-ca-ou-mourir_8183894.html>
France Info's 'True or False' group fed samples of Or|-lien's first
novel, 'It was That or Die' into a programme called Pangram, which found that all had been written with the aid of AI.
Studies have found that Pangram is the most reliable such checker,
having a near-zero false positive rate and false negative rate.
<https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-papers/artificial-writing-and- automated-detection/>
How does Pangram work?
<https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works>
(-2 Un peu de lecture, |oa ne peut pas faire de mal -+ - pourvu que le texte soit d'origine humaine, bien s|+r.)
This is interesting, and I'll have to give it a try. I've been accused
of being an L.L.M. in comp.lang.c by several regulars there. I maintain
that they simply don't know how to write well, and can't do it without
the help of a /stochastically incorrect sentence generator/, but that's
not something we need to discuss here in alt.usage.english.
Now, after checking s=1, for {sample one}, in sci.math, it did say it
was 100% human written. The question remains though, what happens after L.L.Ms. get trained on my output here in alt.usage.english?
Best wishes, and happy feeding the A.I. with alt.usage.english!
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> posted:
On 9/23/2026 1:39 PM, Hibou wrote:
It would seem that it's still possible to tell whether a text has been
written by a human.
-2 Nous avons soumis une s|-rie d'extraits du roman de Th|-lyson Or|-lien au
logiciel Pangram (dans sa version gratuite) : des passages de longueurs
variables, des dialogues comme des descriptions, des paragraphes en
fran|oais ou m|-lant le fran|oais |a l'anglais et |a l'espagnol. Dans tous >>> les cas, Pangram affirmait que 100% des mots avaient |-t|- |-crits avec
l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle -+ -
<https://www.franceinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/l-ecrivain-
thelyson-orelien-a-t-il-utilise-l-intelligence-artificielle-pour-ecrire- >>> son-premier-roman-c-etait-ca-ou-mourir_8183894.html>
France Info's 'True or False' group fed samples of Or|-lien's first
novel, 'It was That or Die' into a programme called Pangram, which found >>> that all had been written with the aid of AI.
Studies have found that Pangram is the most reliable such checker,
having a near-zero false positive rate and false negative rate.
<https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-papers/artificial-writing-and-
automated-detection/>
How does Pangram work?
<https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works>
(-2 Un peu de lecture, |oa ne peut pas faire de mal -+ - pourvu que le
texte soit d'origine humaine, bien s|+r.)
This is interesting, and I'll have to give it a try. I've been accused
of being an L.L.M. in comp.lang.c by several regulars there. I maintain
that they simply don't know how to write well, and can't do it without
the help of a /stochastically incorrect sentence generator/, but that's
not something we need to discuss here in alt.usage.english.
Now, after checking s=1, for {sample one}, in sci.math, it did say it
was 100% human written. The question remains though, what happens after
L.L.Ms. get trained on my output here in alt.usage.english?
Best wishes, and happy feeding the A.I. with alt.usage.english!
ppl hav ssuuggested taht i am.........
On 9/26/2026 4:03 PM, HenHanna@NewsGrouper wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> posted:
On 9/23/2026 1:39 PM, Hibou wrote:
It would seem that it's still possible to tell whether a text has been >>> written by a human.
-2 Nous avons soumis une s|-rie d'extraits du roman de Th|-lyson Or|-lien au
logiciel Pangram (dans sa version gratuite) : des passages de longueurs >>> variables, des dialogues comme des descriptions, des paragraphes en
fran|oais ou m|-lant le fran|oais |a l'anglais et |a l'espagnol. Dans tous
les cas, Pangram affirmait que 100% des mots avaient |-t|- |-crits avec >>> l'aide de l'intelligence artificielle -+ -
<https://www.franceinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/l-ecrivain-
thelyson-orelien-a-t-il-utilise-l-intelligence-artificielle-pour-ecrire- >>> son-premier-roman-c-etait-ca-ou-mourir_8183894.html>
France Info's 'True or False' group fed samples of Or|-lien's first
novel, 'It was That or Die' into a programme called Pangram, which found >>> that all had been written with the aid of AI.
Studies have found that Pangram is the most reliable such checker,
having a near-zero false positive rate and false negative rate.
<https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-papers/artificial-writing-and-
automated-detection/>
How does Pangram work?
<https://www.pangram.com/research/how-it-works>
(-2 Un peu de lecture, |oa ne peut pas faire de mal -+ - pourvu que le >>> texte soit d'origine humaine, bien s|+r.)
This is interesting, and I'll have to give it a try. I've been accused
of being an L.L.M. in comp.lang.c by several regulars there. I maintain >> that they simply don't know how to write well, and can't do it without
the help of a /stochastically incorrect sentence generator/, but that's
not something we need to discuss here in alt.usage.english.
Now, after checking s=1, for {sample one}, in sci.math, it did say it
was 100% human written. The question remains though, what happens after >> L.L.Ms. get trained on my output here in alt.usage.english?
Best wishes, and happy feeding the A.I. with alt.usage.english!
ppl hav ssuuggested taht i am.........
I can't say about you, you give me a very small sample to analyze, but I simply /write well/. My unedited posts to alt.folklore.computers and alt.usage.english, rival many published and edited authors. In writing quality that is, possibly not amusement of the reader.
That has given me the stamp /L.L.M/. because some people just can't
write well, and don't believe other people can do it either.
I cannot be arsed [1] to check all my posts in the aforementioned veri-
fier, so I can't say if my score as L.L.M. has gotten better or worse.
I simply assume the L.L.Ms. are happily retrieving my posts to alt.usa- ge.english, and adding them to their training data with high priority,
in order to compete in writing quality. Hence I expect my score to get
lower over time.
Best wishes, and happy writing in alt.usage.english!
[1] This is a wonderful expression in the land of the King of England,
but apparently got lost in the Americas.
--
Johann | email: invalid -> com | http://www.myrkraverk.com/blog/
I'm not from the Internet, I just work there. | via Easynews.com https://bsky.app/profile/myrkraverk.bsky.social | for ( ;; ) _:;
Federated at https://fed.brid.gy/bsky/myrkraverk.bsky.social
On 9/26/2026 4:03 PM, HenHanna@NewsGrouper wrote:
Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson <johann@myrkraverk.invalid> posted:
On 9/23/2026 1:39 PM, Hibou wrote:
It would seem that it's still possible to tell whether a text has been >>>> written by a human.
This is interesting, and I'll have to give it a try.-a I've been accused >>> of being an L.L.M. in comp.lang.c by several regulars there.-a I maintain >>> that they simply don't know how to write well, and can't do it without
the help of a /stochastically incorrect sentence generator/, but that's
not something we need to discuss here in alt.usage.english.
Now, after checking s=1, for {sample one}, in sci.math, it did say it
was 100% human written.-a The question remains though, what happens after >>> L.L.Ms. get trained on my output here in alt.usage.english?
Best wishes, and happy feeding the A.I. with alt.usage.english!
ppl-a hav-a ssuuggested-a taht i am.........
I can't say about you, you give me a very small sample to analyze,
but I
simply /write well/.-a My unedited posts to alt.folklore.computers and alt.usage.english, rival many published and edited authors.-a In writing quality that is, possibly not amusement of the reader.
That has given me the stamp /L.L.M/. because some people just can't
write well, and don't believe other people can do it either.
I cannot be arsed [1] to check all my posts in the aforementioned veri-
fier, so I can't say if my score as L.L.M. has gotten better or worse.
I simply assume the L.L.Ms. are happily retrieving my posts to alt.usa- ge.english, and adding them to their training data with high priority,
in order to compete in writing quality.-a Hence I expect my score to get lower over time.
Best wishes, and happy writing in alt.usage.english!
[1] This is a wonderful expression in the land of the King of England,
but apparently got lost in the Americas.
I read that there are now Apps to make AI output appear to be human-written. And also Apps to make human-written text appear to be AI-generated (?)
As well, of course, as Apps to detect the application of these new Apps.
The situation is dire enough that some teachers think their job
description needs change: Their job is now to train students how to
take best advantage of AI ! ?!?!
Those of you who liked to point fingers at me, laugh, and call
me a Luddite: -- Are you still laughing now?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 122:24:11 |
| Calls: | 1,194 |
| Files: | 1,352 |
| Messages: | 290,355 |