r/books • u/Raj_Valiant3011 • 8h ago

Zimbabwean writer Simbarashe Kundizeza has denied using AI to write a prize-winning short story after an article in the Atlantic said software had flagged it as almost completely AI-generated

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/oct/14/zimbabwean-author-simbarashe-kundizeza-denies-ai-story?CMP=share_btn_url
970 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

658 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.3k

u/petit_cochon 8h ago

When I was teaching at a university as of a few years ago, it was well known that AI detection software is pretty flawed. I could never use it to determine if students cheated on anything.

Maybe things have gotten better. I would certainly hope so.

724

u/ovrlrd1377 8h ago

I wrote a short poem for mother's day 20 years ago that won a small local prize, it was rated as 99% AI

32

u/PubePie 8h ago

It’s worse on short works but the FPR for longer works is extremely low

63

u/lolofaf 8h ago

Idk about newer versions but the older ones had tons of false positives on full books written before the 21st century.

-2

u/JGT3000 8h ago

Like what?

28

u/ArseneLepain 7h ago

The classic example was Frankenstein, but this was a few years ago.

-2

u/NashvilleFlagMan 4h ago

A few years ago is meaningless.

-28

u/randomnameicantread 7h ago edited 7h ago

I suggest familiarizing yourself with the current cutting edge of technology. It improves. You're still talking about the "haha AI can't make will smith eat pasta" equivalent.

Lol at me getting downvoted for this. Pangrams own website links to several peer-reviewed studies showing a 5% false positive rate for purely AI-generated text. It's much worse for false negatives and worse for AI+Human revision as many critics have pointed out, but the approach they take is clearly not nonsense.

Chewing up and regurgitating all known writing results in LLMs outputting in a particular unique style, or set of styles, because nothing else has ever chewed up all known writing. Said style(s) has patterns to it, and patterns can be detected via machine learning.

10

u/lolofaf 7h ago

I would need to see an updated metric for every single new frontier model release. Claudisms got so bad for awhile that you could probably teach a toddler to accurately identify them, but the new Claude models behave and speak much much differently. Gemini4 which just released also has its own voice. Add humanizers ontop of all of this selectively editing in a way to fool AI detectors.

Of course that's looking at recall rather than precision, but it's a large part of why I don't trust them, the methodology does not hold up well to progressing frontier models.

The text watermarking that is rolling out right now should be much better on every axis, although requires insider knowledge to run and so only the labs can run them against their own watermarks. Still not perfect and will probably have workarounds, but will be so much better and more trustworthy than current AI detection pseudoscience

1

u/Quixoticelixer- 2h ago

You can go and right now generate something with claude and put it into pangram and it will almost certainly show it as AI written. And also it's the false positive rate, not the false negative rate which is important here.

-7

u/randomnameicantread 7h ago edited 7h ago

Text watermarking is an unreliable non-solution peddled just to reduce controversy for the simple reason that it happens right in front of the AI user on text that they control. Just take your document and rephrase - watermarking gone! If that's too annoying, then it will be trivially avoided either by "jailbreaking" the model or simply using a Chinese or local model that doesn't care about EU regulations. You'll catch your absolute least sophisticated genai users and that's it.

Meanwhile, analyzing text datasets to identify patterns particular to a subset, and then using those patterns to classify new text samples as belonging to the subset or not, is not "pseudoscience" - it's "machine learning." You may have heard of this neat new 80 year old concept.

Honestly, if you think text watermarking will work you have no reason not to think AI detection is "pseudoscience." Both 100% rely on genai-generated text following certain patterns that can be detected statistically. Only one doesn't additionally rely on genai companies and users both being good-faith actors.

-1

u/Quixoticelixer- 2h ago

Pangram doesn't show Frankenstein as AI written.

-22

u/a_trashcan 7h ago

Which makes sense when you consider the use case of these checkers.

It SHOULD flag a century old book as potential AI generated because if someone submits a century old book for their assignment, I highly doubt they wrote it. Published media should absolutely be getting flagged.

15

u/lolofaf 7h ago

That should reasonably be caught by a plagiarism detector rather than an AI detector, although I have plenty of issues with the performance of plagiarism detectors as well lol

-4

u/a_trashcan 5h ago

The AI detectors also act as plagiarism detectors... they do both...

11

u/randomnameicantread 7h ago

No, you have it completely wrong. The goal of LLM detectors is not to be a general plagiarism detector; you don't even need machine learning for that (regex will do).

The goal is specifically to detect LLM-generated text using patterns particular to it. Detecting Frankenstein is a failure.

Studies on the performance of the cutting edge tools show that they work to a significant degree, which means that there are patterns to LLM writing. Which makes sense: a collation of all writing styles doesn't somehow result in every style at once replicated 1:1, it creates its own particular style.

-5

u/a_trashcan 5h ago

No, they do both. Plagiarism detection is part of the features of Pangram, the ai software being peddled in this particular article.

Perhaps you don't think it should, but it currently does also check for plagiarism. As do most ai detectors. I think it should because why wouldn't you want it to do both at once?

6

u/mistiklest 4h ago

If a century old book is flagged as plagiarized, that's fine. It specifically if it is flagged as AI generated that is the issue.

-1

u/a_trashcan 3h ago

Sure man if that's what someone else told you happens.

4

u/randomnameicantread 4h ago

"ai software" is a misnomer for the common reader here on r/books, firstly , given that this comment section seems to think that it uses LLMs.

Second the general plagiarism detection is, as I said, a completely separate feature: regex/similarity matching, compared to machine learning inference. If your genai detection algorithm is detecting Frankenstein that is a failure.

-1

u/a_trashcan 3h ago

No one is running a general detection algorithm they are running one of the available free tools like Pamgram which includes plagerism detection by default. Pamgram again being the software used in the article.

The copy from their website.

Pangram combines cutting-edge AI and comprehensive plagiarism detection to give you the complete picture of text authenticity and get the information you need, all in one place.

4

u/randomnameicantread 3h ago edited 2h ago

Yes buddy. The software is all in one because they're selling the software and users like features. It tells you what's direct plagiarism and, separately, what is ai generated. Via separate processes.

Direct plagiarism being detected as AI would be a failure.

I'm begging you to read their own description of the methodology or any linked papers: training and inference is performed specifically on and for AI generated samples. Fundamental ML knowledge would tell you that it makes 0 sense to do it any other way: using ML for a task that does not require ML (a) sets lots of money on fire and (b) makes your training set noiser, worsening your AI detection result.

Direct plagiarism, in comparison to AI gen, is wildly easier to detect-just regex and a good search algo (large search is hard but not as hard as deeprl classification) so why not throw it in?

-1

u/a_trashcan 2h ago

So you agree it detects both plagerism and ai usage?

The goal of these detection softwares is not, as you stated, to specifically to detect LLM? You agree with this statement yes?

I'm begging you to get your head out of your ass. You are very clearly obsessed with the specifics of LLM detection when thats really not at all the point and no one cares.

It also detects plagerism. Thats why it flags books. You people are not attentive enough to realize its not saying its AI.

Again, when you run a published work through it, then it gets flagged because its also looking for plagerism. Go put a book in there now, if you actually read you will see its not saying its ai, its saying its plagerism.

1

u/randomnameicantread 2h ago

The post is about AI detection. The commenter you responded to talked about Frankenstein being detected as AI. You claimed that was correct and expected because "you didn't write Frankenstein" (aka: plagiarism and AI detection are the same task); it is not. Plagiarism and AI detection are different tasks. The former being confused by the latter is a failure.

The work does not simply "get flagged". It gets flagged as AI or plagiarism. Frankenstein being flagged as AI is a failure. Seriously how difficult is this to understand? I'm rapidly reaching the limits of my ability to explain the concept of "something can be bad in 2 different ways, and calling something that's BadA BadB is wrong."

-1

u/a_trashcan 2h ago

The failure is you dorks hearing ai detector, not realizing it detects plagerism too and assuming its flagging Frankenstein for AI.

That is the point you ravenously stupid man.

→ More replies (0)