--- title: Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself description: Substack launched an AI detection tool powered by Pangram, letting readers scan posts and comments for AI involvement. CEO Chris Best frames it as 'anti-slop... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself | daily.dev og:description: Substack launched an AI detection tool powered by Pangram, letting readers scan posts and comments for AI involvement. CEO Chris Best frames it as 'anti-slop... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/CDFreQ0rJ.png og:image:alt: Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself **[Trends](https://daily.dev/sources/trends)** · 2 min read · 17 upvotes · 8 comments ## Summary Substack launched an AI detection tool powered by Pangram, letting readers scan posts and comments for AI involvement. CEO Chris Best frames it as 'anti-slop is a pro-AI stance' — he's not against AI assistance but wants to prevent Substack from becoming a content farm. The move is a veiled jab at LinkedIn's AI-saturated feed. The tool is a transparency mechanism, not an enforcement one, giving readers a probabilistic signal rather than hard bans. Critics note AI detection is unreliable and risks flagging non-native English writers as AI-generated. ## Content Substack shipped an AI detection feature this week, powered by a company called Pangram, letting readers scan any post, note, or comment over 100 words for an estimate of how much was written by AI versus a human. CEO Chris Best framed it as a transparency play, not a ban: "Anti-slop is a pro-AI stance." Writers can scan their own drafts before publishing and add a voluntary disclosure note. The platform even coined a term for what it's fighting: "Claudefishing" — content that mimics a human voice but was generated by AI. The reception has been warm in some corners. Gergely Orosz called it a great initiative, noting he simply stops reading anything he suspects is AI-written. Peter Yang plugged in accounts of prolific X posters and found what he expected. The general vibe: finally, someone's doing something. Here's the problem. Freddie deBoer, a writer who got flagged by Pangram after someone accused him of AI-writing a post, spent time actually stress-testing the tool — and the results are not reassuring. The same 300-word passage Pangram called 100% AI-written sits inside a 5,000-word essay Pangram calls 100% human-written. Sub-sections of the flagged passage? Also 100% human. The percentage meter seems to only return polar results — 100% one way or the other — which is a strange behavior for a probabilistic tool. He also says he induced false positives in human-written text in about 15 minutes of deliberate effort. DeBoer's core argument isn't that Pangram is useless. It's that using it as a one-shot verdict is epistemologically reckless. Even Pangram's own stated false-positive rate produces statistically expected errors at scale. When the professional consequences for writers are real, that matters. Substack is betting that human-verified writing becomes a scarce, valuable commodity. That's a reasonable bet. But the tool they've chosen to enforce that bet has a documented brittleness problem — context-dependent, gameable, and prone to confident wrong answers. "Claudefishing" is a catchy term. Whether Pangram can actually catch it is a different question. ## Questions this post answers ### How reliable is Substack's new AI detection feature powered by Pangram? It shows significant inconsistency. Writer Freddie deBoer found the same 300-word passage scored 100% AI-written when isolated but 100% human-written when embedded in a 5,000-word essay, and sub-sections of the flagged text also scored 100% human. He also induced false positives in genuinely human-written text within about 15 minutes of deliberate effort, raising concerns about using it as a definitive verdict. _Anyone relying on AI detectors to judge writing should weigh cases like this before trusting a single score, a debate daily.dev followers track closely._ ### What is Claudefishing? Claudefishing is the term Substack coined for AI-generated content that mimics a human writing voice to pass as authentic. It describes the specific problem Substack's new detection feature, built with Pangram, is meant to catch: text designed to feel human despite being machine-generated, distinct from AI writing that reads as obviously robotic. _Writers and platforms weighing authenticity tools can follow this terminology and its adoption on daily.dev._ ## Community discussion Top comments from developers on daily.dev. **@idoshamun** · 2 upvotes > We've AI detection since it's early days. Few years now **@lezli01** · 2 upvotes > In today’s rapidly evolving, technologically sophisticated digital landscape—it has become increasingly difficult to ascertain, with absolute confidence, whether a given piece of written content was produced by a human being or generated by an artificial intelligence system. **@qwertydiy** · 1 upvotes > To be fair this is my take on AI content in general. AI itself is OK AMD beneficial but slop is not **@jibonkrishnaroy** · 0 upvotes > Thanks for sharing this information. ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [As AI content floods the internet, Pangram raises $9M to detect it](https://daily.dev/posts/as-ai-content-floods-the-internet-pangram-raises-9m-to-detect-it-yuw47jxaf) · TechCrunch · 0 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#tech-news](https://daily.dev/tags/tech-news), [#linkedin](https://daily.dev/tags/linkedin) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj"},"datePublished":"2026-07-22T12:06:29.810Z","dateModified":"2026-09-13T19:17:33.888Z","description":"Substack launched an AI detection tool powered by Pangram, letting readers scan posts and comments for AI involvement. CEO Chris Best frames it as 'anti-slop...","image":"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNxsHdgXEAANFqd.jpg","thumbnailUrl":"https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HNxsHdgXEAANFqd.jpg","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Trends","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Trends","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--ZfSp3asX--/f_auto,q_auto/v1780996004/logos/trends?_a=BAMAMiWQ0","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/trends"},"commentCount":8,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":17},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":8}],"keywords":"tech-news,linkedin","timeRequired":"PT2M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Trends","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/trends"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Substack's AI detector is a shot at LinkedIn, not AI itself"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj","comment":[{"@type":"Comment","text":"We’ve AI detection since it’s early days. Few years now","datePublished":"2026-07-22T18:15:13.527Z","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/CDFreQ0rJ#c-FPYfi4WdN","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Ido Shamun","url":"https://daily.dev/idoshamun","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s---xy_OAwk--/f_auto,q_auto/v1703781380/avatars/avatar_28849d86070e4c099c877ab6837c61f0"},"interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":2}},{"@type":"Comment","text":"In today’s rapidly evolving, technologically sophisticated digital landscape—it has become increasingly difficult to ascertain, with absolute confidence, whether a given piece of written content was produced by a human being or generated by an artificial intelligence system.","datePublished":"2026-07-22T17:37:48.909Z","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/CDFreQ0rJ#c-IupkXvLgz","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"László Szabó","url":"https://daily.dev/lezli01","image":"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/ACg8ocKj3v7EFYJoXUUuro6ALF9fD3RTRATiBpBOVcOzqro4fy6bWqMm=s96-c"},"interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":2}},{"@type":"Comment","text":"To be fair this is my take on AI content in general. AI itself is OK AMD beneficial but slop is not","datePublished":"2026-07-22T18:45:40.469Z","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/CDFreQ0rJ#c-PLg0wdq7b","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Rene Yibowei","url":"https://daily.dev/qwertydiy","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--QlvtioAW--/f_auto/v1746524446/avatars/avatar_aTUl3chxFyPngKtboGisL"},"interactionStatistic":{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":1}},{"@type":"Comment","text":"Thanks for sharing this information.","datePublished":"2026-07-28T11:15:03.095Z","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/CDFreQ0rJ#c-axHZp60FA","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Jibon Krishna Roy","url":"https://daily.dev/jibonkrishnaroy","image":"https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/ACg8ocIaoOOW6GkBaZgUYqEW96neuO8N1W3rzBgE4rfqk9R0R1Czt6yL=s96-c"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/substack-s-ai-detector-is-a-shot-at-linkedin-not-ai-itself-cdfreq0rj#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"How reliable is Substack's new AI detection feature powered by Pangram?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"It shows significant inconsistency. Writer Freddie deBoer found the same 300-word passage scored 100% AI-written when isolated but 100% human-written when embedded in a 5,000-word essay, and sub-sections of the flagged text also scored 100% human. He also induced false positives in genuinely human-written text within about 15 minutes of deliberate effort, raising concerns about using it as a definitive verdict. Anyone relying on AI detectors to judge writing should weigh cases like this before trusting a single score, a debate daily.dev followers track closely."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is Claudefishing?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Claudefishing is the term Substack coined for AI-generated content that mimics a human writing voice to pass as authentic. It describes the specific problem Substack's new detection feature, built with Pangram, is meant to catch: text designed to feel human despite being machine-generated, distinct from AI writing that reads as obviously robotic. Writers and platforms weighing authenticity tools can follow this terminology and its adoption on daily.dev."}}]} ```