I only went to Pangram because I read through the essay and could not help but notice the Claude-like sentence structure and AI-isms in it, which distracted me and completely made me distrust the thesis of the piece.

My understanding is that Pangram is the best out of all of the AI detectors and if there is a better one I'm happy to switch to it. And it's easier to point to them than to give explicit sentences and examples about why it reads so AI-generated (and since you want it, it's these sentences in particular: "The message was unambiguous: energy is finite, security is earned, and comfort has a cost.", "That template is being applied again today — and markets have accepted it.", "One country never made the West’s mistake.", etc.)

Reading through it again, there are so many emdashes. And don't get me wrong, I was a liberal user of emdashes before AI! But just like, if your job is to communicate your thoughts to a wide audience at least respect their intelligence enough and not rely on crutches just to get an article out against a deadline.

Yes there are studies, for example last year Pangram's false positives were measured to be under 0.5%.

https://www.pangram.com/blog/third-party-pangram-evals

Personally, at first I thought these sorts of tools were dumb and wouldn't really work, but I think it works because it just isn't designed to be "adversarial". If you want your AI to trick Pangram, you can make an AI to trick Pangram. It just catches people who are cutting and pasting from the AIs without putting any more effort into hiding it.

> Is there any reason to trust Pangram's tool over Carlyle's reputation?

You have your own chatbot, right? Ask it. I've never had one disagree with GPTZero yet.

This has the same energy as people who don't care if controversial images in social media are AI generated, as long as they're engaging.

It makes a huge difference if the writing was manual or automated. LLMs generate verbose, generic writing, and ideas that could be concisely expressed in a sentence inflate to entire paragraphs. It's disrespectful to readers when the author saves a couple of hours by wasting thousands of their readers.

Article from a trusted organization is supposed to be grounded in real-life events and filtered through their specific area of expertise. They bet their reputation on it, at least in theory. Current agents have none of that, and you can't trust their output to the same extent in practice. Too much recognizable slop in the article suggests high degree of autonomy of the agent that has been used, and raises doubts about trusting the entire article. It might be the valid opinion of the author rephrased by the model, but you can't tell as it obscures actual intent and the amount of real life data.

If AI wrote it, it is not worth effort engaging with.

Nonsense. Of course the tool matters.

That's why I only use code written in Vim. Emacs corrupts the othewise identical bits, just like AI. Gets 'em all greasy and then they smell funny.

I wasted some time trying to get a sense of the content, to "judge it on its merit". It is a total slop. And if i knew beforehand that it is AI, i'd have spent much less time as the first short look would have confirmed that it is slop.

> There are definitely technical issues with refinery capacity, but I don’t think they’re insurmountable

If they were cheap or easy to solve, don’t you think US refineries would have already converted to support domestic crude? Domestic crude is cheaper than imported crude, the only reason to import is because it so expensive to convert a refinery. My, admittedly very limited, understanding is that you generally don’t convert refineries, it’s cheaper and easier to just build a new one that targets a new type of crude. Building refineries takes a few years, they’re not something you throw together in a few months when oil markets go crazy.

That's a really interesting/informative link you have.

Some highlights are:

- Energy use per capita has been declining since 2000

- Overall energy use has been basically flat since 2000

- Essentially, coal is being replaced by gas, almost 1:1. Lump both together and their relative share of the market is pretty stable.

- Solar went from 0.3 to 2.8% in the last 10 years, wind from 0.3% to 4.2% in the last 20 years. 7% wind/solar isn't world-leading but getting from basically 0 to 7% in 20 years is significant movement.

I thought the same thing about matching the line to the axis, but the legend is marked with LHS and RHS. It's very subtle.

Different scales between the left and right sides as well. The vertical distance for 500k bpd on the left is about half of the right.

| Just plotting the SPR level would make the same point honestly.

They'd still have to zoom in a lot.

Here's the SPR level since the 80s: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W... The big drop around 2022 is, supposedly, related to the Ukraine war.