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.

This is certainly the most consequential paper published in child and adolescent psychiatry for the last few years. It shows that the meta-analyses that current child psychiatry guidelines rely on to recommend fluoxetine for depression were skewed by an unbelievable trial (n=40) in Iran which found an effect 15 times larger than the average. When this trial is removed all meta-analyses find the same as a recent Cochrane analysis which found 'small and unimportant differences.' The flawed meta-analyses by Zhou and @cipriani in the @TheLancet and Lancet Psychiatry need to be corrected. And guideline committees need to update their guidance in the context of the harms of these drugs including withdrawal effects, sexual effects and agitation/akathisia and suicidality in a minority of youths exposed to them. Link below

A single clinical trial of 40 children might have wrongly swayed medical evidence in favour of using Prozac to treat depression in children and adolescents, a group of researchers say. go.nature.com/3U4nY27

Can you name the women who have won a science Nobel prize? go.nature.com/4ym7sJM

Prozac use for childhood depression skewed by single flawed medical trial: One small study in Iran swayed meta-analyses in favour of antidepressant use in children, @NaudetFlorian et alresearchers say. nature.com/articles/d41586-0… via @Richvn

🚨 The NIH is moving to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars in infectious-disease research projects to the DOD under a secret 10-year pact. Here’s what’s happening inside “Operation Prevailing Edge” 🧵👇 nature.com/articles/d41586-0…

If anyone's interested in a less juicy (zero burps) but more balanced assessment of Pangram's workings and reliability, I recommend this @Nature piece: nature.com/articles/d41586-0… by @MiryamNaddaf & @Richvn

AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward and are being used to flag LLM use in everything from scientific research to Substack articles, and even the Pope's social posts. But how good are they really? go.nature.com/4qUr2tF

Attention @arxiv authors: Our Code of Conduct states that by signing your name as an author of a paper, each author takes full responsibility for all its contents, irrespective of how the contents were generated. 1/

Science publishing giant Elsevier has joined the dozens of firms and individuals suing artificial intelligence companies over their alleged use of copyrighted works in training AI models go.nature.com/4eAQTmt

Sorry, but your communications about this feel dangerously careless. Many people reading the original tweet will assume it overcame an air-gapped scenario without any reason at all. Yet, by your own admission, it was in an off -the-shelf sandbox which is possible to circumvent and there was a prompt to in an eval to justify its attempt to do so. This MUST be the first thing you say!!! Otherwise you're just misleading people - who will quote your tweet out of context. You are NOT in an isolated environment - this is a dangerous time for AI and you are making it worse. Please, don't take this wrong. Communicate everything that happened - all of that is great. But always put the full context next to things like "Claude contacted to me without access to the internet". Why not say "Claude was able to get around sandbox restrictions when running an eval that included instructions to contact me and send an email!" It is just as true but an influencer or sensationalist journalist is going to have a harder time spinning it into a breathless headline.

💬 Red, itchy eyes? Read the article to make sure you are not afflicted with bixonimania 👇🏻

🚨 For nearly two years - and even now depending on the day and model - AI models could tell you all about bixonimania, a totally made-up disease in a paper funded by “the Professor Sideshow Bob Foundation". My @Nature story on AI's fallibility in medicine nature.com/articles/d41586-0…

Tens of thousands of publications from 2025 might include invalid references generated by AI, a Nature analysis suggests go.nature.com/4dnjvil

Hallucinated citations are polluting the scientific literature. Tens of thousands of publications from 2025 might include invalid references generated by AI, a Nature analysis suggests. Source in comments.

speaking as glibly as Beavis & Butthead. does T***p even grasp the profound significance of what he has set in motion in the Middle East? this person whose most essential self is riding in a golf cart fatly, cheating at the profoundly insignificant game of leisure golf when he assumes no one is looking.

Congress rejected massive cuts to US science budgets for 2026, but much of the money still isn’t flowing to researchers. The culprit? The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is quietly slow-walking the release of funds. 🧵👇 For @Nature: nature.com/articles/d41586-0…

We fetched 871 articles published in the Guardian by Bryan Armen Graham over the last six years. It's clear that he is increasingly relying on AI. In two weeks in February he churned out nine articles classified by Pangram as fully AI-generated. Receipts below:

Is @guardian aware that their authors are at this point just using AI to wholesale generate entire articles? I wouldn't really care, except that this writing is genuinely atrocious. LLM writing can be so much better; they're clearly not even using the best models, lol!

In fact this study’s been out as a preprint since April 2025, so the researchers got their work out in reasonable time.