[onion2k]

If you switch on the 'Supporting Evidence' on that site, it seems to be basing it's opinion on three things:

- Use a descriptive triad of "reviewing, directing, and course" (it incorrectly misunderstood 'course correcting'). That's not common in writing but humans do do it occasionally.

- Using the word 'thoughtful'. I don't understand that as evidence of AI.

- Using the words 'Book Apart' together, which would be a clear AI signal if it wasn't the name of a publisher of short books, and being used in that context in the article.

I don't think you should put much stock in the output of pangram.com.

[ameliaquining]

Pangram's "Supporting Evidence" feature is misleading and you should ignore it. It's entirely separate from the classifier that determines whether text is AI; it just takes text that's already been classified as AI and looks for some hardcoded AI tells in it. I kind of wish they'd get rid of it, but nontechnical users really like it.

The classifier itself has a very low rate of false positives: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/BFI_WP_2...

[onion2k]

It's so tempting to drop the text of that paper into Pangram. :)

[johnfn]

Pangram clearly says "Remember, our results aren’t based on this evidence." when you turn on supporting evidence.

[sokoloff]

That’s an unusual use of “supporting” for sure.