I'll take your word that it's human written, but reading that gist, it absolutely reads like Claudeslop / GPT slop, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that Pangram flagged it as AI when it reads identically to LLM output - this feels like a very acceptable edge case to me (assuming you are telling the truth).
Are you absolutely sure you wrote this by hand? If so it's kind of remarkable how close to an LLM you write like.
It’s important to remember that LLMs were trained on well written human text. People who write well are going to sound like an LLM. Especially if it’s a marketing message for a website.
I’ve been accused of being an LLM multiple times here on HN too. I know you have no way to know for sure other than trusting that I’m not using an LLM to write. But it’s pretty frustrating that people jump right to LLM accusations.
Today Pangram says it is 100% human, which is correct. But yet I got multiple DMs when I posted it 8 months ago saying "stop posting AI slop!" in response to that comment. At the time, Pangram marked it as 50% AI.
That comment doesn’t read like slop in the slightest to me, so the people DMing you have a bad eye for it. Regardless, I think your ‘human’ sample is not a good indicator of the quality of pangram. I would update your priors a bit.
I have 1000s of reddit and hacker news comments from before 2023, and lots of long form writing too. But as you point out, those are all in the training set, and in pangram's "definitely human" training set too.
The ones that sound like LLMs tend to be the ones that were well researched and spent more time on, not the off the cuff stuff, which is most of what I write. So it would take me a while to find something like that.
But you're welcome to dive into my reddit and HN history, or all my blog posts on the wayback machine if you want to look for one. :)
I posted here on HN but it got removed.