People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text · HackerPapers discussions

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by neom

Fri, 21 Aug 2026 20:52:40 GMT

Most people do not realize when a personal message they receive was written by AI, study finds - https://theconversation.com/most-people-do-not-realize-when-... People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Seattle3503

Thu, 06 Aug 2026 20:09:39 GMT

Do you have evidence Pangram is unreliable? There are independent evaluations [1, 2] showing it works, and it's getting used more and more scientific papers. Have you used it or evaluated it yourself? What do you think these other evaluators are doing or getting wrong? 1: https://bfi.uchicago.edu/insights/artificial-writing-and-aut... 2: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by chis

Tue, 04 Aug 2026 17:07:40 GMT

This has been pretty well studied. Pangram is about as good at an expert human with a 98% detection rate and <2% false positive, for flagging AI generated text. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Chu4eeno

Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:02:44 GMT

On the humans (vs. pangram) ability to reliably spot LLM generated content, there was an independent study: https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Chu4eeno

Tue, 30 Jun 2026 15:12:14 GMT

It has extremely low false positive rate in various tests (e. g. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1), I've never seen it mark something I knew was human written as AI.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Chu4eeno

Sun, 28 Jun 2026 04:16:38 GMT

It's also confirmed in third-party studies like this https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1 (which also confirms that humans that have experience with LLMs are very good at spotting them).

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by embedding-shape

Wed, 27 May 2026 11:25:01 GMT

Humans writing more like LLMs, just like new LLMs write more like humans, it's all coalescing into one. I've copied-pasted comments I made on HN from like 2020 and had it tell me it's "100% AI". I've seen examples where the services claim "100% AI" because there was no normal dashes, only em-dashes. Even have a recent example from HN itself: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48165690 > This reads very AI. Pangram [0] agrees [1]. [0] Not perfect, but I think as good evidence as any: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654 [1] https://www.pangram.com/history/44cd07d3-ba94-4331-8c7f-a626... Said…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Tue, 19 May 2026 02:36:34 GMT

People who use ChatGPT for writing are accurate detectors of AI text (2025)

3 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Groxx

Mon, 18 May 2026 02:11:59 GMT

Rather obviously they're choosing the one that makes them look best. Another they link to¹ shows 98% for example. Much more importantly, 9/10 dentists agree it's the best. 1: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654, linked from² https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals (the second section) 2: the third study they link there is based entirely around the assumption that Pangram is correct, and seems to have been a collaboration or something as they're included in the credits area.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by kaonwarb

Sun, 17 May 2026 02:56:05 GMT

This reads very AI. Pangram [0] agrees [1]. [0] Not perfect, but I think as good evidence as any: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.15654 [1] https://www.pangram.com/history/44cd07d3-ba94-4331-8c7f-a626...

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 17:01:18 GMT

Frequent ChatGPT users are accurate detectors of AI-generated text (2025)

11 points; 2 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by nothinkjustai

Tue, 07 Apr 2026 16:52:54 GMT

There is research showing the contrary that is far more convincing: > Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such “expert” annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v2

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by spindump8930

Mon, 06 Apr 2026 13:20:01 GMT

Pangram has time after time been shown as the only detector that mostly works. And that paper is pretty old now! There are recent papers from academics independently bench-marking and studying detectors e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15654

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by samdoesnothing

Sun, 14 Dec 2025 23:28:37 GMT

I don't think people should be obligated to spend time and effort justifying their reasoning on this. Firstly it's highly asymmetrical; you can generate AI content with little effort, whereas composing a detailed analysis requires a lot more work. It's also not easily articulatable. However there is evidence that writers who have experience using LLMs are highly accurate at detecting AI generated text. > Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — mentioned by Jweb_Guru

Mon, 10 Nov 2025 04:38:14 GMT

Human experts can reliably detect some kinds of long-form, AI-generated text using exactly the same sorts of cues I've outlined: https://arxiv.org/html/2501.15654v1. You may take issue with the quality of the paper, but there have been very few studies like this and this one found an extremely strong effect. I am making an even more limited claim than the article, which is only that it's possible for "experts" (i.e. people who frequently interact with LLMs as part of their day jobs) to identify AI generated text in long-form passages in a way that has very few false positives, not classify it…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Sat, 19 Jul 2025 20:44:50 GMT

Frequent users of ChatGPT are robust detectors of AI text

1 point; 2 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Thu, 17 Jul 2025 21:58:45 GMT

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks can detect AI-generated text

12 points; 7 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Thu, 22 May 2025 19:12:09 GMT

People who use ChatGPT for writing are accurate detectors of AI-generated text

1 point; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text — HN submission

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 16:08:29 GMT

People who use ChatGPT for writing are robust detectors of AI-generated text

2 points; 0 discussion replies on HN. Paper and source history. A submission is not an endorsement.