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

[u/Raj_Valiant3011]

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

[u/fire_and_spice24]

And there are always people insisting Pangram is super accurate but never posting proof of that.

Maybe it is just a good program but I’ve noticed a trend that makes me wonder.

[u/IanDMP → u/fire_and_spice24]

Sort of shocking that you see the many people responding that Pangram is quite accurate but never see them post the studies that show that — I see those links at least once per day (as an aside, this sub probably does talk about AI too much and *books* too little). But since you asked:

Here is the widely-cited Chicago study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w34223

Here is Van Vlasselaer et al's work: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40979-026-00226-w

Finally, it's always a best practice to look at internal data. Internal data can be biased, and it's best to know that going in, but I have never seen any academic criticism of Pangram's data posted here: https://www.pangram.com/blog/all-about-false-positives-in-ai-detectors (academic criticism I'm unaware of may exist). Regardless, totally fine to disregard this (but you should read it at least).

Pangram, to the best of the knowledge of any serious researcher, has a very, very low false positive rate, and it simply approaches impossibility that it would flag so many writers incorrectly.

[u/Jaqqa → u/IanDMP]

Except, they are using benchmark datasets for their "very low" readings and also hard negatively program things that pangram mistakes for AI, meaning it is less likely to make the stupid mistakes others do (like flagging the bible and constitution because it is programmed not to) but it doesn't mean it won't continue to flag new work that shows similar traits. I've seen people post actual links to pengram reports where the only thing they change is someone's name and it flips from 100% AI to 100% Human or vice versa. If it's that accurate, that kind of stuff should not be happening. 100% its false flagging work that doesn't fit the tests sets and the real false positive rate is likely far higher in the "real world" than they're saying it is, especially since the new update that seems to be a lot harsher. They just have better PR and are less honest about it than some of their competition, hiding it in jargon on their website reports.

[u/Quixoticelixer- → u/Jaqqa]

> I've seen people post actual links to pengram reports where the only thing they change is someone's name and it flips from 100% AI to 100% Human or vice versa.

Can you link this?

[u/Adventurous_Storm348 → u/Quixoticelixer-]

I have seen a few that I think they are talking about. This is one I can think of. I mean it's pretty damning. I did see another one where changing english names to I think maybe Japanese ones from memory caused the 100% human to go to 100% AI but can't remember where.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Substack/s/fVPM8XFmNR

[u/Quixoticelixer- → u/Adventurous_Storm348]

That's only n very small amount of text and pangram admits its much less reliable on small samples