Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

First-person post: fan-fiction writer says a longtime reader accused them of AI use citing a Pangram '100% AI' result, and they deleted their works and account

In a post to r/TrueOffMyChest on 11 October 2026, a writer who had posted fan fiction on Archive of Our Own (AO3) since 2023 says a reader accused them of using AI and said that Pangram, an AI-text detector, had rated their work 100% AI. The writer says they have never used AI. They say they then ran Pangram themselves on something written on the spot and on texts from their high-school years in the 2010s, and each came back 100% AI. They say they deleted all their works and their AO3 account rather than face further accusations, and that they feel sad and can never repost the works. In a reply the writer says the accuser was a regular reader who had commented for years. The account is uncorroborated: the accusation, the Pangram results and the deleted works were not published.

AI system
Pangram AI-text detector (reported)
Occurred
Event date unknown
Reported
11 October 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Made a claim about the person
Reported harm
Reputational HarmPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source
3 claims: 3 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Pangram, an AI-text detector, which by the writer's account a reader used to rate the writer's fan fiction 100% AI, and which returned 100% AI when the writer tested it on newly written and 2010s school texts

What Happened

The accusation. The writer says: 'I the other month got accused of ai, which I have never used and said that Pangram said it was 100% ai.' Replying to a commenter who suggested the accuser was probably not a real person, the writer says: 'It was one of my regulars who had been reading and commenting for years.'

The writer's own test. 'So I tried Pangram myself and if did indeed say that. But I hadn’t used ai. I tried something I just wrote on the spot. 100% Ai. Texts from high school (2010’s). 100% AI.' The writer gives no screenshots or scores beyond these words.

The effect. 'So I deleted all my works. And my account.' The writer says they would rather keep their own truth than have many people accuse them, feel sad, describe years of writing, editing and fandom work as 'now it’s just empty', and say they can never put the works back. In a reply they write: 'Yeah, I just kinda feel tired and done with the site'.

Replies. Commenters said AI checkers are unreliable, suggested moderating comments or blocking the accuser instead, and one described how they understood Pangram's method. None of the replies is evidence about this case.

Limits. Single anonymous account. The accusation, the Pangram reports and the deleted works were not published, the dates of the accusation and the deletion are not stated beyond 'the other month', and the fandom and the accuser are not identified.

Reported harm

A fan-fiction writer reports being accused of AI use by a longtime reader on the strength of a Pangram '100% AI' result, which the writer disputes, and says they deleted all their works and their AO3 account and feel sad and done with the site (first-person account, uncorroborated).

How Harm Occurred

By the writer's account, a reader relied on a Pangram result rating the writer's fan fiction 100% AI to accuse the writer of AI use. The writer says Pangram also rated newly written text and 2010s school texts 100% AI, and that the accusation led them to delete all their works and their account.

Outcome

Unknown

The writer says they deleted all their works and their AO3 account and do not intend to repost the works. No response from the accuser, AO3 or Pangram is reported.

What remains unknown

  • When the accusation and the deletion happened: the post of 11 October 2026 says only that the accusation came 'the other month'.
  • What Pangram's reports showed, which text was tested and whether the accusing reader shared the report.
  • The fandom, the accuser and whether the accusation spread beyond the reader's comment.
  • Whether the writer kept copies of the deleted works.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The writer reports that the accusing reader cited a Pangram result rating the writer's work 100% AI, and that Pangram also returned 100% AI on text the writer had just written and on 2010s school texts. The relation recorded is the detector's reported claim about the authorship of the writer's work, which the reader relied on to accuse the writer; the writer says the accusation led to the deletion of all the works and the account. The detector reports were not published.

3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The writer says a reader accused them of using AI and said that Pangram had rated their work 100% AI, and that the accuser was a regular reader who had read and commented for years.

Causal attribution. Writer's account of the accusation; the accuser's message and the Pangram report were not published.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'I the other month got accused of ai, which I have never used and said that Pangram said it was 100% ai.'; 'It was one of my regulars who had been reading and commenting for years.'
Reported The writer says they have never used AI, and that when they ran Pangram themselves on something written on the spot and on texts from high school in the 2010s, it returned 100% AI each time.

Causal attribution. Writer's own test, reported without screenshots; the writer's statement that the texts are their own is not independently established.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'So I tried Pangram myself and if did indeed say that. But I hadn’t used ai.'; 'I tried something I just wrote on the spot. 100% Ai. Texts from high school (2010’s). 100% AI.'
Reported The writer says they deleted all their works and their AO3 account rather than face further accusations, feel sad about it, and believe they can never repost the works.

Causal attribution. Writer's own statement of the action taken and its effect; the writer links the deletion to the accusation.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    'So I deleted all my works. And my account. Because rather I know my truth than lots of people accuse me of using ai.'; 'Yeah, I feel sad about it'; 'And I know I can never put them back because then they’re probably really going to be called AI.'; 'Yeah, I just kinda feel tired and done with the site'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-12: full self-text and the thread's 17 comments retrieved through the arctic_shift archive API by post ID (HTTP 200), after the post surfaced in the reddit.com new.rss feed; no translation and no human reviewer. The poster handle is not recorded. Applies to s1.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The post names no place or country, and the platform (AO3) and the subreddit are not used to infer one. Unknown after review.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-12: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a writer accused of AI use on the strength of a reported AI-text-detector result, described with attribution and without corroboration. No handle, fandom or place is recorded.

People described

A fan-fiction writer who had posted on Archive of Our Own since 2023 (the poster; age, gender and location not stated)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person, the writer, reports the accusation and its effects. The writer was not the detector's user in the accusation (a reader ran it), so the writer is counted among other people harmed. The accusing reader is not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#first-person#reddit#pangram#ai-text-detector#false-positive-alleged#fan-fiction#creative-work

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). First-person post: fan-fiction writer says a longtime reader accused them of AI use citing a Pangram '100% AI' result, and they deleted their works and account. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-ao3-fan-fiction-writer-deleted-works-after-longtime-reader-cited-pangram-100-percent-ai-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_ao3_fan_fiction_writer_deleted_works_after_longtime_reader_cited_pangram_100_percent_ai_first_person,
  title = {First-person post: fan-fiction writer says a longtime reader accused them of AI use citing a Pangram '100\% AI' result, and they deleted their works and account},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-ao3-fan-fiction-writer-deleted-works-after-longtime-reader-cited-pangram-100-percent-ai-first-person}
}

Related cases

Medium Pangram AI-text detector

US and UK: Hachette cancels the US edition of the novel Shy Girl and discontinues the UK edition after allegations it was AI-generated, with the author denying personal use of AI

On 19 March 2026 Hachette Book Group said it had cancelled the US publication of the horror novel Shy Girl by Mia Ballard (Orbit imprint) and would not continue the UK edition (Wildfire imprint, first released in November 2025). Reports say the decision followed an investigation by Hachette and came a day after the New York Times asked the publisher about online allegations that the text was largely AI-generated. The allegations came from readers on Goodreads, Reddit and YouTube and from AI-detector results, including a 78.4 percent AI-generated score on the Pangram detector that a publishing consultant says two other services confirmed. Ballard denied personally using AI in emails to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, and told the New York Times that an acquaintance hired to edit the original self-published version used AI. Ballard wrote that "my name is ruined" and "my mental health is at an all time low", and said legal action was being pursued. Hachette’s public statements cite its commitment to original creative expression. The sources inspected do not report what its investigation found. Whether AI generated any of the text, and who used it, is unresolved.

High Unidentified Google AI tool (reported)

Argentine activist reports threats after an alleged Google AI misidentification

On 26 August 2026, WhatsApp groups in Ceuta circulated videos and images claiming that Argentine political scientist and activist Flavia Broffoni — who was in Patagonia and had not been to Spain since 2014 — was a woman filmed in Ceuta allegedly giving pepper spray to Moroccan migrants. A screenshot from one group shows that a user cropped the woman's face from the video and asked a Google AI tool who she was, with the word 'activista' as context; the answer identified her as Flavia Broffoni with details of her public profile. Broffoni received death and rape threats. La Nación's own test with the same video produced a different false identification — a student from Quilmes, with her personal data. Google Argentina said it could not confirm the screenshot came from its systems without the original link and had received no formal report. Broffoni is weighing legal action with her lawyer.

High Grok

Grok falsely named former officer Christi Hill as an arresting officer in the Henry Nowak case; she is in hiding after threats

In early June 2026, social media posts and the AI chatbot Grok falsely identified former Hampshire police constable Christi Hill as one of the 'primary officers shown' in bodycam footage of the December 2025 arrest of Henry Nowak, who died after being stabbed. Hill had left the force in April 2024 — more than a year before the murder — and says the misidentification stems from a national police bravery award photo being misattributed. After 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' she is hiding in a safe house. BBC Verify separately obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons, also wrongly accused online, was not in the country at the time; the Home Secretary said a misidentified male officer had to move out of his home. Hampshire Constabulary confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified and received death threats.

Low Facewatch facial recognition

Chester: shopper told to leave a Home Bargains store as a shoplifter after being flagged on the Facewatch system, which Facewatch later said should not have held a record for the shopper

A 67-year-old shopper told the BBC and the Guardian that staff at a Home Bargains store in Chester told the shopper to leave in front of other people because the shopper had come up on the store's Facewatch system as a shoplifter. Facewatch later sent the shopper a photo with words saying items had been put into a bag and stolen. Facewatch said the shopper should not have been on its system and that the image and associated record were permanently removed. The Guardian reports that a subject access request showed the shopper had been incorrectly associated with a shoplifting incident on an earlier visit, and that Facewatch's chief executive attributed the three cases in the article, which include this shopper's, to human error in store processes. Home Bargains declined to comment. The shopper reports feeling physically sick and helpless. The Guardian reports that Home Bargains later offered an apology and a 100 pound voucher on condition of confidentiality, which the shopper declined. The year of the visit is inferred to be 2026 from the BBC report of 22 February 2026.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents