Nition

I'm offering a USD$500 reward to the first person who can present pre-2020 human-written text that the latest version of @pangram flags as AI. The specific requirements to claim the reward are: 1. At least 750 consecutive words. 2. Pangram flags it as 75% or more AI generated. 3. You provide proof that the text was first written in 2019 or earlier and is unmodified. 4. The text was ostensibly human written. This requirement only exists to avoid trick answers like output from GPT-2, machine translation, markov chains, the same word 500 times etc. Regarding requirement #3, unfortunately in 2026 there's no way to prove that new text wasn't AI generated, so what I need provided is proof that the text existed in 2019 or earlier, before AI writing got so good. For example, valid proof might be: - A link to the text on a website that's been logged by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine before 2020. - A link to a paper published on a third party website with a pre-2020 publication date. Note: I will need to be able to access the paper through the same website that has its publication date. Otherwise someone could send a modern AI generated paper and simply link to the date and abstract of a paper with the same name but different content. - A chapter from a book edition with a known pre-2020 publication date where I can access a pre-2020 copy for myself. Note: For the same reasons as above, simply sending a passage of text and a link to a book's name and publication date doesn't prove anything on its own. The ideal situation would either be that there's an eBook of it available somewhere with a known pre-2020 upload date, or it's a well-known enough book that the content simply couldn't be faked everywhere. Q&A: "Why are you offering this reward?" Some people are blaming the detector because they don't want to admit to using AI for their writing. I don't like people lying for personal gain. "Are you affiliated with Pangram in any way?" No. "How do I submit something to you?" Just reply to this tweet with the necessary info and I'll have a look when I can. "How can I trust you to judge fairly?" I'll publicly reply with my verdict on submissions and the world can judge me. The world can also judge you - please only submit something if it really fits all the criteria. Especially since I'll need to review all submissions in my free time. "But it's my private writing, can I send it to you privately?" If it's always been private then how will you prove that it's pre-2020? "I have the perfect example but I left the text with my girlfriend in Canada." She can submit it and win $500. "Won't this be trivially easy to claim? I heard even chapters of Don Quixote and Moby-Dick get fully flagged as AI!" Tell me which chapter and win $500. "Conversely, isn't 750 words at >=75% a high bar? If Pangram is so reliable, why not 1%?" At very low word counts Pangram IS somewhat unreliable, and with a monetary incentive I can imagine someone scanning every book on Project Gutenberg just to find one paragraph that's falsely flagged as AI. At the same time, most claims that Pangram is flagging human writing as AI have it showing the entire text as AI. I recently saw someone on X say that they personally knew of "thousands" of examples of human text that was flagged like this (unfortunately they declined to mention any). So I've set the bar somewhere in the middle. "But Pangram was trained on existing text; that's why it always flags OLD text as human but falsely flags NEW text." As far as I'm aware this isn't really how Pangram works. But I'd love to be able to award this bounty for new human writing, it's just that there's no way to verify people's honesty online for the new stuff. "How will you pay out if I win?" However works. Probably an international bank transfer via @Wise . "How can I help?" When someone says they know of an old published paper or story that Pangram flags as AI, you could point them to this tweet. They can win $500. "How long will your offer last if nobody wins?" As long as this post is up. If you're reading this, it's still available.

I think this is my favourite part

I always remember a Reddit post I read once where someone had been making EDM for something like seven years and was ready to give up because they were still only producing the most basic formulaic stuff. They were discouraged because they heard tracks by relative beginners that still sounded much more interesting than theirs. And everyone was pretty encouraging, like "well, are you having fun making music? Because that's what counts." Which is fine and true, but it was also true that the track they shared was bad, and they would be having a lot more fun if it was good. IRC they thought their problem was bad mixes, or being able to find good sounds. But I think their bigger problem was that they were composing like "okay, I need a synth melody line, the bass and sub-bass, then the buildup, then the drop...". And I don't reckon they had ever realised that many other artists hear a song in their head FIRST (thought certainly things often change when they actually start recording), and what they were lacking wasn't the ability produce good sounds but the ability to think of what sound to produce.