Ah interesting that you read it that way. That reminder shows for everybody, not for people who have been flagged. I’ll think about changing the text.
However, we are already planning on reviewing this policy as soon as we have time (likely post-EAG). Specifically, we might do what you already assumed we were doing, i.e. set up an automated system based on pangram. One of my biggest cruxes is just how reliable pangram is, so let me know if you have takes.
My impression is that Pangram has very low false positive rates and unclear-to-me false negative rates—so I’d suggest using it to rule things in as AI-generated, but not strongly rule them out.
Ah interesting that you read it that way. That reminder shows for everybody, not for people who have been flagged. I’ll think about changing the text.
However, we are already planning on reviewing this policy as soon as we have time (likely post-EAG). Specifically, we might do what you already assumed we were doing, i.e. set up an automated system based on pangram. One of my biggest cruxes is just how reliable pangram is, so let me know if you have takes.
My impression is that Pangram has very low false positive rates and unclear-to-me false negative rates—so I’d suggest using it to rule things in as AI-generated, but not strongly rule them out.
A little related discussion here https://​​x.com/​​caleb_parikh/​​status/​​2035434186417262863