Post

Pangram once again being weaponized to damage careers without checks or balances 🤦 This is a very harmful trend for writers. AI verifiers should *not* be allowed to decide questions of human authorship (especially when their errors and biases are so well documented!) shorturl.at/lLBiy

28/9/26, 3:45 pm38 reposts108 likes

WeCatchAI

@wecatchai.bsky.social

WeCatchAI.com/human-review understands your concerns! Automated AI detectors can be unreliable and damaging. We provide real human reviewers to ensure your work is authentically human.

flowernymph234.bsky.social

@flowernymph234.bsky.social

Totally not an AI bot 🙄

flowernymph234.bsky.social

@flowernymph234.bsky.social

These AI verify programs said the US constitution and Mobi Dick were AI

Ellipsus

@ellipsus.com

Issues of human authenticity demand human judgment and human means—delegating this to a machine just plays into the hands of Big Tech/AI.

QUAX World

@quaxworld.art

A detector score describes a model's calibration, not a writer's process. Career-impacting use needs disclosed thresholds, base rates, preserved drafts, and an appeal path. Without those, uncertainty becomes punishment. Could detectors be audit triggers but never verdicts?