Seems like it's a cat and mouse game that won't end anytime soon. LLMs are constantly getting better at writing, so at some point people won't be able to tell reliably tell the difference anymore. I wouldn't laude Pangram so highly at this point, since we're not at the final round yet.
I'm not absolutely opposed to AI in principle. If it writes things worth reading, I'm not opposed to reading them.
The problem is when it writes things that have the appearance of making sense but actually don't, when it writes what could be better put in 10% of the words, when it writes with no coherent logic. I don't have the time or the mental energy to wade through that on the faint chance that there might be a gem in there somewhere. But I have the same objection to human writers who do the same things.
Write something worth reading. I don't have time for it otherwise.
I agree completely, but how does that relate to my comment (saying it's cat and mouse, the game may never end, and Pangram's current success isn't indicative of future value)?
It's saying I don't actually care. I don't care if Pangram can detect AI writing in the future. I don't care if it can't. I'm saying the question does not matter to me.
I don't care about not reading AI. I care about not reading slop.
But I guess I could care about one outcome of this game. If Pangram loses the ability to detect AI writing, but AI writing continues to be this nonsense that has no real point or logic to it, and so more garbage gets published that I want to not read, yeah, I guess I would care about that.
