Pangram excels at distinguishing chatbot-generated words from human writing. But it’s not reliable for spotting artificial images.
| # | Наименование новости | Тональность | Информативность | Дата публикации |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | heise+ | KI-Detektor im Praxistest: Warum auf Pangram 4.0 kein Verlass ist | 0 | 19.04 | 06-08-2026 |
| 2 | Why AI fiction still feels flat: New test shows characters lack mystery and complexity | 0 | 7 | 01-07-2026 |
| 3 | Was KI-Detektor-Software kann (und was nicht) | c’t uplink | 0 | 13.78 | 15-08-2026 |
| 4 | After watchdog slams understaffing, AI to vet Pentagon-backed professors’ China ties | 0 | 11.54 | 20-04-2026 |
| 5 | How Anthropic plans to watermark Claude's AI-generated text | 0 | 12.07 | 14-08-2026 |
| 6 | AI could uncover new physics faster but there’s a surprising catch | 0 | 6.64 | 11-06-2026 |
| 7 | Can AI improve my parenting? | 0 | 8.46 | 07-08-2026 |
| 8 | AI 'watermark removers' flood the web. Almost none can prove they work. | 0 | 8.39 | 13-08-2026 |
| 9 | Making sense of embodied AI | 0 | 5 | 18-07-2026 |