×
Did the Pope use AI to write about the dangers of AI?It’s possible that AI was used to write parts of Pope Leo XIV’s latest encyclical about AI’s impact on humanity. An analysis by Linch Zhang posted on the forum LessWrong found certain paragraphs of Magnifica Humanitas to be between 40 percent and 100 percent written by AI, according to the popular AI detector Pangram.The document includes known traits that appear in AI-generated writing, such as a higher use of the word “genuinely” — which crops up in writing by Anthropic’s Claude — than previous encyclicals, Zhang says. Another person ran the text of the document section by section through Pangram, finding that 62 percent of its first chapter was flagged as AI generated. When The Verge ran roughly 2,000 words of the document through Pangram, it estimated that 46 percent was AI-written.AI detection isn’t foolproofStill, other portions register as being written by humans. Zhang notes that Pangram flagged some sections as “essentially 0% AI.” The first 20 paragraphs of the last four encyclicals, when run through Pangram, had a 100 percent confidence of being human written. And a transcript of Pope Leo’s speech, run through Pangram, was also rated as 100 percent human.AI detection isn’t foolproof. Different AI detectors can display different results, and even when there’s consensus there’s no guarantee they’re correct. But Pangram is generally respected among AI researchers. In March 2025, Pangram said it estimated its false positive rate of reporting human-written work as AI-generated “to be approximately 1 in 10,000.”Encyclicals are lengthy letters published by the pope, meant to impart teachings that address important moral and social challenges of the time, according to The New York Times. This encyclical is the pope’s first, with the most recent one written by Pope Francis in October 2024. It’s also the first to focus on AI and its wide-ranging influences, with Pope Leo notably presenting it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic.The Vatican didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.#Pope #write #dangersAI,News

Did the Pope use AI to write about the dangers of AI?

It’s possible that AI was used to write parts of Pope Leo XIV’s latest encyclical about AI’s impact on humanity. An analysis by Linch Zhang posted on the forum LessWrong found certain paragraphs of Magnifica Humanitas to be between 40 percent and 100 percent written by AI, according to the popular AI detector Pangram.

The document includes known traits that appear in AI-generated writing, such as a higher use of the word “genuinely” — which crops up in writing by Anthropic’s Claude — than previous encyclicals, Zhang says. Another person ran the text of the document section by section through Pangram, finding that 62 percent of its first chapter was flagged as AI generated. When The Verge ran roughly 2,000 words of the document through Pangram, it estimated that 46 percent was AI-written.

AI detection isn’t foolproof

Still, other portions register as being written by humans. Zhang notes that Pangram flagged some sections as “essentially 0% AI.” The first 20 paragraphs of the last four encyclicals, when run through Pangram, had a 100 percent confidence of being human written. And a transcript of Pope Leo’s speech, run through Pangram, was also rated as 100 percent human.

AI detection isn’t foolproof. Different AI detectors can display different results, and even when there’s consensus there’s no guarantee they’re correct. But Pangram is generally respected among AI researchers. In March 2025, Pangram said it estimated its false positive rate of reporting human-written work as AI-generated “to be approximately 1 in 10,000.”

Encyclicals are lengthy letters published by the pope, meant to impart teachings that address important moral and social challenges of the time, according to The New York Times. This encyclical is the pope’s first, with the most recent one written by Pope Francis in October 2024. It’s also the first to focus on AI and its wide-ranging influences, with Pope Leo notably presenting it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic.

The Vatican didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

#Pope #write #dangersAI,News

It’s possible that AI was used to write parts of Pope Leo XIV’s latest encyclical about AI’s impact on humanity. An analysis by Linch Zhang posted on the forum LessWrong found certain paragraphs of Magnifica Humanitas to be between 40 percent and 100 percent written by AI, according to the popular AI detector Pangram.

The document includes known traits that appear in AI-generated writing, such as a higher use of the word “genuinely” — which crops up in writing by Anthropic’s Claude — than previous encyclicals, Zhang says. Another person ran the text of the document section by section through Pangram, finding that 62 percent of its first chapter was flagged as AI generated. When The Verge ran roughly 2,000 words of the document through Pangram, it estimated that 46 percent was AI-written.

AI detection isn’t foolproof

Still, other portions register as being written by humans. Zhang notes that Pangram flagged some sections as “essentially 0% AI.” The first 20 paragraphs of the last four encyclicals, when run through Pangram, had a 100 percent confidence of being human written. And a transcript of Pope Leo’s speech, run through Pangram, was also rated as 100 percent human.

AI detection isn’t foolproof. Different AI detectors can display different results, and even when there’s consensus there’s no guarantee they’re correct. But Pangram is generally respected among AI researchers. In March 2025, Pangram said it estimated its false positive rate of reporting human-written work as AI-generated “to be approximately 1 in 10,000.”

Encyclicals are lengthy letters published by the pope, meant to impart teachings that address important moral and social challenges of the time, according to The New York Times. This encyclical is the pope’s first, with the most recent one written by Pope Francis in October 2024. It’s also the first to focus on AI and its wide-ranging influences, with Pope Leo notably presenting it alongside Christopher Olah, a co-founder of Anthropic.

The Vatican didn’t immediately reply to a request for comment.

Source link
#Pope #write #dangers

X is overhauling how it pays creators, phasing out its long-running Revenue Sharing program in favor of a new system called the Original Content Rewards Program.

The platform’s Creators account announced the change in a post, saying the program is meant to “reward creators who bring original ideas, expertise, reporting, creativity, and commentary to X.”

According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.

Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.

To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.

X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.

As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.

Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.

#retires #revenue #sharing #Original #Content #Rewards #program">X retires revenue sharing for new ‘Original Content Rewards’ program
                                                            X is overhauling how it pays creators, phasing out its long-running Revenue Sharing program in favor of a new system called the Original Content Rewards Program. The platform’s Creators account announced the change in a post, saying the program is meant to “reward creators who bring original ideas, expertise, reporting, creativity, and commentary to X.”According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.

        SEE ALSO:
        
            With the launch of X Money, Elon Musk gets one step closer to his ‘everything app’
            
        
    
Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.
        
            Mashable Light Speed
        
        
    
To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.
As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States. Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.

                    
                                            
                            
                        
                                    #retires #revenue #sharing #Original #Content #Rewards #program

announced the change in a post, saying the program is meant to “reward creators who bring original ideas, expertise, reporting, creativity, and commentary to X.”

According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.

Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.

To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.

X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.

As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.

Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.

#retires #revenue #sharing #Original #Content #Rewards #program">X retires revenue sharing for new ‘Original Content Rewards’ program

X is overhauling how it pays creators, phasing out its long-running Revenue Sharing program in favor of a new system called the Original Content Rewards Program.

The platform’s Creators account announced the change in a post, saying the program is meant to “reward creators who bring original ideas, expertise, reporting, creativity, and commentary to X.”

According to the announcement, X stopped accepting new Revenue Sharing enrollments immediately and will wind the program down entirely after Sept. 7. Creators currently enrolled will receive three final payouts — two on the standard schedule in mid- and late August, and a final payment around Sept. 11 covering earnings through the cutoff date. Starting Sept. 8, existing Revenue Sharing members can apply for the new program if they meet its eligibility requirements, the company said.

Per X’s announcement, the new program ties earnings to “qualified impressions” a creator’s original content receives, rather than the advertising-revenue split that defined the old system. Qualified impressions must come from unique, verified Premium subscribers viewing at least half of a post on the Home Timeline; impressions that are duplicated, paid, promoted, or fraudulent don’t count.

To qualify, X says creators must be at least 18, live in an eligible country, hold a Personal or Business account in good standing, subscribe to a paid X tier, and have at least 500 verified followers, along with 500,000 Home Timeline impressions from verified users over the prior 90 days. Those requirements must be maintained continuously to keep receiving payouts, according to the announcement.

X’s guidelines lean heavily on defining what counts as “original.” Per the company’s post, content that is copied, reuploaded without authorship, generated through automated means, or reposted with only minor edits — such as captions, watermarks, or basic text overlays — won’t qualify. Users can earn from reposting others’ material only if they add substantive commentary, analysis, or creative editing. So, simply describing what’s already happening in a post doesn’t meet the bar.

As noted in Engadget’s report on the news, X adjusted its Revenue Sharing formula in March to weight engagement more heavily toward a creator’s home region. That shift, they wrote, likely followed revelations that a number of popular accounts posting pro-Trump content and US-focused commentary were not actually based in the United States.

Whether the new Original Content Rewards Program carries over a similar regional weighting is not yet clear.

#retires #revenue #sharing #Original #Content #Rewards #program
Buc-ee’s became something of a viral sensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.

According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:

In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.

Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.

#Bucees #dodges #John #Oliver #sue #small #businessBusiness,Culture,Entertainment,Internet Culture,Law,News,Policy,TV Shows">Buc-ee’s dodges John Oliver to sue another small businessBuc-ee’s became something of a viral sensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.#Bucees #dodges #John #Oliver #sue #small #businessBusiness,Culture,Entertainment,Internet Culture,Law,News,Policy,TV Shows

viral sensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.

According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:

In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.

Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.

#Bucees #dodges #John #Oliver #sue #small #businessBusiness,Culture,Entertainment,Internet Culture,Law,News,Policy,TV Shows">Buc-ee’s dodges John Oliver to sue another small business

Buc-ee’s became something of a viral sensation during the World Cup, but it has a troubling history of suing small gas stations and convenience stores. On a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver literally begged the company to sue him for selling merch featuring his squirrel mascot, Mr. Nutterbutter, with branding that reads “Buc-Off.” But Buc-ee’s has so far declined to take the bait, instead targeting yet another small business that lacks the deep pockets and legal team of HBO.

According to WDTN, an NBC affiliate in Miami Valley, Ohio, Buc-ee’s opened its first locations in the state earlier this year. And now it’s targeting established local businesses through trademark suits. Beaver’s Mini Mart in Beavercreek has been a staple of the city for “decades.” But Buc-ee’s is claiming that this long-running store’s beaver logo could confuse customers. WDTN says:

In the suit, filed days ago, Buc-ee’s alleges that the Mini Mart’s cartoon beaver mascot is too similar to their own, with its “wide eyes and a smile” that also “uses red as a predominant color,” and could cause confusion.

Oliver and Mr. Nutterbutter have already fended off one lawsuit, with Bob Murray, a mining executive, having unsuccessfully sued for defamation following a 2017 episode about the coal industry.

#Bucees #dodges #John #Oliver #sue #small #businessBusiness,Culture,Entertainment,Internet Culture,Law,News,Policy,TV Shows

Post Comment