← Back to context

Comment by runako

21 hours ago

> Claude, a general-purpose model, can identify me, personally

It cannot. this is a misconception. A human being is fully capable of writing 200 words that Claude will identify as not being written by them, because human beings are far more complex than Claude. A human can even choose to deliberately write in the style of a different human, even one who does not exist.

Sometimes people are writing instruction manuals; those are not written like their professional emails, which are not written like their personal emails. It is normal for people to be able to write in different voices/styles/etc. People code switch, people write for different audiences, people change over time, people are hurried or tired or sick, etc.

So no, an LLM cannot identify you uniquely in 200 words. But more to the point, most human communication is not in training sets. And Pangram has no way of course-correcting on the vast amount of data that is not in its training sets.

By comparison: the autonomous vehicle companies actually do need their products to verifiably work. So they also feed back human-analyzed data from real trips into their models. They can tell the model where it was right or wrong in the real world. This is the part Pangram cannot do! Pangram deployed at a university may be used to accuse a student of cheating, but then Pangram will never know for sure whether the text in question was written by a human or machine. The feedback loop is missing a critical step!

I have run the experiment like seven times now on different tracts of text, given to people who are not me. It’s a point of simple fact that Opus 4.7 can identify me when I’m writing fresh text in my voice. Does that change your conclusion if you were to grant it for the sake of argument (notwithstanding the fact that it’s actually true)? Or is your objection “it can identify one of your voices, the most commonly used one, and not the others” or something like that?