alt Hacker NewsNo, that's not correct for any reasonable definition of "impossible." Look up pangram's accuracy ratings. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good. LLMs in fact leave very distinguishing traces of their logit distributions in the text they write. It's one of the reasons why it's so easy for humans to also smell them.
It is possible to trick pangram - they bias toward a low false positive and a higher false negative - but it is not true that it is essentially random.
> In preliminary testing, Mantzarlis found Pangram was more likely to misclassify AI-generated text as human-authored when it rhymed, repeated itself, and when it used archaic language. He then built an adversarial set of 588 AI-generated text samples tailored to these weaknesses. When he used Pangram to evaluate them, the tool falsely labelled AI text as human 86% of the time.
> “I don't think that Pangram is bad,” Mantzarlis said. “I think actually Pangram at scale is probably a pretty solid tool. That said, I am extremely worried about it being used in individual cases.”
https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/human-wrote-...
Using it for an individual article to fully determine if its AI or not is "impossible" because you're not even using the tool properly.