Will Oremus

Why they matter

Tracked through public AI activity and peer connections inside the directory.

AI signals
11
past 30d
Sources
8
distinct domains
Discussões
15
past 30d
Latest signal
1d ago
View every signal from Will Oremus →
Covering online speech, social media and the information wars at @theatlantic.com. Shitposting about Bluesky on Bluesky. Signal: willoremus.24

Articles & links

A glut of AI-written fiction is drowning out human authors, new research shows. www.nytimes.com/2026/07/28/b...

nytimes.com
View on Bluesky · ♥ 363 ↻ 130 ↩ 18 · 4 from the directory shared this · 80d ago

For anyone interested in a less juicy (zero burps) but more evidence-based assessment of Pangram's workings and accuracy, I highly recommend this @nature.com piece by @miryamnaddaf.bsky.social & @richvn.bsky.social: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

AI-detection tools have made huge leaps forward — how good are they? nature.com
AI Weekly's analysis →
  • NeurIPS rejected 18% of submissions to one of its tracks in June after screening them with the AI detector Pangram.
  • Pangram's technical paper reports a 0.0041% false-positive rate on English texts, with similar rates across more than 100 languages.
  • But Pangram still labels heavily AI-edited human student essays as fully human 41% of the time, per its own tests.
Read full analysis →
View on Bluesky · ♥ 16 ↻ 3 ↩ 0 · 4 from the directory shared this · 44d ago

People have real qualms with AI detectors, and so do I, but the evidence is mounting that Pangram in particular very rarely gets it wrong (especially on longer chunks of text, but increasingly even on short ones). @brianx.bsky.social tested it and it didn't miss: www.nytimes.c…

nytimes.com
View on Bluesky · ♥ 241 ↻ 58 ↩ 14 · 2 from the directory shared this · 65d ago

I reposted this, but tacking itonto this thread as well bc I think it's useful context. Margaret was also a co-author of the Stochastic Parrots paper and recently offered some thoughts on which parts of the analogy hold up (and which have been widely misunderstood): medium.com…

medium.com
AI Weekly's analysis →
  • Mitchell's essay argues the 'stochastic parrot' label applies to large language models, not to AI systems in general.
  • The 2021 paper, co-authored with Bender, Gebru, and McMillan-Major, was always framed around language models specifically.
  • She retains the phrase as a tool against what the piece calls 'anthropomorphic traps' where people reflexively humanize AI.
Read full analysis →
View on Bluesky · ♥ 131 ↻ 8 ↩ 8 · 6 from the directory shared this · 15d ago

Weird, this in-depth profile of Pangram doesn't focus at all on its founder's suspicious burping and food-microwaving habits. Instead there's just a bunch of stuff about how they built it, how it works, whether it works and why it matters https://t.co/xYfCckdjqe

bloomberg.com
View on Bluesky · ♥ 0 ↻ 0 ↩ 0 · 2 from the directory shared this · 31d ago

Weird, this in-depth profile of Pangram doesn't focus at all on its founder's suspicious burping and food-microwaving habits. Instead there's just a bunch of stuff about how they built it, how it works, whether it works and why it matters www.bloomberg.com/news/feature...

bloomberg.com
View on Bluesky · ♥ 17 ↻ 3 ↩ 1 · 2 from the directory shared this · 31d ago

I set out to understand why AIs love negative parallelism. The answer wasn't just surprising—it was illuminating. www.theatlantic.com/technology/2...

The Most Famous AI Writing Tic Is Also the Most Mysterious - The Atlantic theatlantic.com
AI Weekly's analysis →
  • The Atlantic frames the 'it's not X; it's Y' antithesis as perhaps the best-known and most mysterious tic of AI writing.
  • Barron's counted the phrase in Fortune 500 filings jumping from 50 in 2023 to over 200 in 2025, per The Atlantic.
  • In one Washington Post dataset the article cites, variations of 'not just X, but Y' appeared in roughly 6% of all July messages.
Read full analysis →
View on Bluesky · ♥ 233 ↻ 49 ↩ 11 · 4 from the directory shared this · 97d ago

Recent commentary

Watching the Apple launch event and I thought this was interesting: a feature called Apple Reference Image makes an unalterable original version of each pic you take, so you can prove it was real and what it actually captured if AI fakes start circulating

View on Bluesky · ♥ 234 ↻ 42 ↩ 7 · 38d ago

A Wall Street Journal op-ed bylined by a hedge fund billionaire was flagged by Pangram as AI-written. The author admitted it, and now it seems the WSJ is standing by him. Per reports by @jeffstein.bsky.social & @maxtani.bsky.social

View on Bluesky · ♥ 181 ↻ 56 ↩ 18 · 53d ago

getting very into semicolons solely because AI doesn't use them

View on Bluesky · ♥ 48 ↻ 4 ↩ 4 · 82d ago

Out of curiosity I actually tried asking an AI's advice for my fantasy football team. Quite frankly Claude sucks at fantasy football

View on Bluesky · ♥ 23 ↻ 0 ↩ 4 · 10d ago

The idea that there's something ironic or hypocritical about using Pangram to detect AI slop hinges on the common conflation of two different technologies (a classifier and an LLM) under the banner of AI. If that's ironic, then using a social network to criticize AI is ironic too. (It isn't.)

View on Bluesky · ♥ 24 ↻ 1 ↩ 2 · 9d ago

Talking on WNYC's Brian Lehrer show rn about AI fears, Anthropic/OpenAI's calls for slowing down, and Trump/Nvidia's counter-calls for putting pedal to metal

View on Bluesky · ♥ 11 ↻ 1 ↩ 0 · 32d ago

In Will Oremus's orbit

Center = Will Oremus. Left = members they follow (green edges). Right = members who follow them (blue edges). Top = mutual follows (orange edges, slightly larger). Drag any node to reposition; click to open that profile.

Are you Will Oremus? Show it.

Add the Who’s Who of AI badge to your site or bio. It links back to this profile.

Listed in AI Weekly's Who's Who of AI

Markdown: [![Listed in AI Weekly's Who's Who of AI](https://aiweekly.co/modules/custom/aiweekly_whoswho/images/whoswho-badge.svg)](https://aiweekly.co/whos-who/person/willoremus-com)