michael bechler

Yesterday at the White House, leaders from across our industry came together to sign the White House Accord on Super Intelligence. The principle is simple: the companies building this technology have the primary responsibility to develop and deploy it safely, and to be accountable when they fall short. The Accord reinforces that responsibility with robust internal controls, independent external evaluation, and board level oversight. Super Intelligence offers an extraordinary opportunity to advance discovery, productivity, security, health, and prosperity. The future of Super Intelligence will be shaped not only by what it can do, but by the confidence it earns. By building with ambition, rigor, and responsibility, we can help ensure this extraordinary technology expands opportunity and improves lives for generations to come.

On vit désormais dans un monde où les affiches de vos commerces préférés sont faites avec l’IA, où le dernier livre primé est probablement écrit avec l’IA, où la playlist « Chill Machin chouette » de votre plateforme de streaming est bourrée de sons IA, où le mail que vous recevez a été rédigé avec l’IA, où le diplôme de votre jeune enfant prodige a été obtenu grâce à l’IA, où la lettre de motivation de vos candidats a été déléguée à l’IA, où votre employeur délégue le tri des candidatures à l’IA, où la présentation de votre collègue en réunion a été rédigée par l’IA et où vos grands parents accros à Facebook commentent frénétiquement des posts attrapes pigeons faits à l’IA tandis que leurs petits enfants font du slop IA sur X et Instagram. Bref, l’IA c’est très bien pour tout un tas de choses mais elle a le vilain défaut de bâtir un monde uniforme peuplé d’illusionnistes. Et les gens adorent ça, même quand cela saute aux yeux. Profitez du dernier rapport PISA. Bien qu’absolument désastreux, il sera considéré comme exceptionnel dans quelques années. Quand les adulescents IA de parents attrape nigots IA seront devenus professeurs IA et parents d’enfants IA.

A Stanford team proved AI detectors call human writing fake more than 61% of the time, then found the fastest way to pass the test was to let ChatGPT rewrite the essay for you. I had to reread the study, because it sounds like a joke and it's being used to punish people every day. The team was led by James Zou. They took 91 essays written by real students preparing for an English exam for foreign speakers. They fed them to seven of the most popular AI detectors on the market. On average, more than 61% came back flagged as machine-written. 89 of the 91 essays got flagged by at least one detector. Then they ran essays by American eighth graders through the same seven detectors. Almost perfect scores. Human, human, human. The reason is almost insulting once you see it. Most detectors guess by measuring how predictable your words are. A chatbot picks the most likely next word, every time. So does someone writing in their second language, because they reach for the safe word they know instead of the fancy one they're unsure of. Plain English looks like a robot to these machines. So the researchers asked ChatGPT to rewrite the flagged essays with bigger vocabulary. The flag rate crashed from 61% to about 12%. The cure for looking like a machine was letting a machine rewrite you. The company that built ChatGPT already knew this. In January 2023, OpenAI launched its own detector. It caught only 1 in 4 AI-written texts and wrongly accused real humans 1 time in 11. Six months later they switched it off. The note is still on their website. One line. Pulled for its low rate of accuracy. The people who understand this technology best gave up on it. Everyone else kept going. A copywriter once pasted the Declaration of Independence into a detector. It came back 98.51% AI. Thomas Jefferson wrote it with a quill in 1776. We laughed at that one too. This summer it stopped being funny. Jamir Nazir is a 62-year-old writer from Trinidad. In May he won a regional title in the Commonwealth Short Story Prize, one of the hardest prizes in the world for unpublished fiction. Within days, a detector called Pangram scored his story 100% artificial. The screenshot spread. Strangers turned his sentences into memes. What they didn't know: Nazir has neuropathy. He can barely type. He dictates his stories into his Android phone and edits them there, a few lines at a time. The prize organizers spent a month going through his drafts, his character notes, even an ending he'd written and thrown away. They cleared him and named him the overall winner. Granta, the magazine that published his story, cut ties with the prize anyway. People still argue about his story, and that's fine. Arguing over evidence is what humans are supposed to do. What bothers me is the order. The number came first. The drafts came a month later. By then his mother had already heard what the internet was saying about her son. In July, Substack gave every reader a button to scan any post for AI. Medium's CEO, Tony Stubblebine, said the part out loud: people cheating on purpose just run their text through a "humanizer" app and walk straight past the detector. The only people left to catch are the honest ones. And the math doesn't care how good the detector is. Say it's wrong once in every 10,000 scans. Run it millions of times on a platform and real writers get branded as fakes every single week. Now take the human out of the loop. Today a teacher still reads the score and decides. Picture the version where nobody does. A hiring system that silently throws away every cover letter scoring above 80% AI. You never hear back. You never find out why. An immigration office screening personal statements the same way, hitting hardest the people Stanford already proved it gets wrong: anyone writing in their second language. This isn't science fiction. Freelance writers were already losing clients over detector scores back in 2024. A person who wrongly accuses you can be questioned. They can apologize. They can be fired. A score can't. It just runs again tomorrow on the next million people, just as sure of itself, just as wrong. We can't hand verdicts to software that flagged a Founding Father. So what should we do instead? Let a score buy a conversation, never a punishment. Even Turnitin, the biggest name in school detection, tells teachers not to use its AI score as the only reason to act against a student. Ask for the drafts. Ask the person to walk you through one paragraph. Nazir's truth came out of a folder of old versions, not a percentage. Stamp the machine instead of interrogating the human. Google already marks text written by Gemini in a way software can read, and Europe's new rules, live since August, push every AI company to do the same. If the label is baked in at the source, nobody has to guess who wrote what. Guessing is the whole problem. These tools look at your sentences and make a bet on your honesty. When they lose the bet, you pay. If a detector flagged the last thing you wrote, what proof do you have sitting on your laptop right now?