[toinewx]

> 1. There is no evidence this is AI generated. The author claims it wasn't, and on the specific issue you cite, he explains why he's struggling with understanding it, even if the answer is "obvious" to most people here.

There is, actually, You may copy the introduction to Pangram and it will say 100% AI generated.

[PaulRobinson]

That's not evidence, at least not evidence that would stand up to a peer review if the author were to refute it.

[tpoacher]

It's not proof but it's definitely evidence.

[toinewx]

When I give my own writings to Pangram, it says 100% human.

[keybored]

What’s the evidence that it is human-generated? Oh I see. If it is AI generated then you still have to judge it by its merit, manually. (Or can I get an AI to do it for me?) And if they lied about it being human-authored? Well what if the author refutes that accusation? (Maybe using AI? But why judge them if they use AI to refute the claim? After all we must judge its on its own merit (repeats forever))