False Promise of AI Detectors: Why They Prey on Fear
Aritra Sen
Get more signups and demos for your SaaS product with content done right | Fractional Content Strategist | Content Operations | Content Audit | Content Management & Streamlining | Founder - Digitalhawk
As AI text generators like ChatGPT explode, a wave of paranoia has emerged around AI-generated content plagiarizing or replacing human writing.
Capitalizing on these fears, AI detection tools like Originality.ai, GPTZero, Copyleaks, undetectable.ai, and others have appeared, claiming to identify AI-written text.
However, a deeper look reveals that these detectors frequently do more harm than good. Their flawed detection techniques prey on fear rather than accurately identifying AI content.
?????? ???? ?????????????????? ???????? – ?????? ????????
Most AI detectors rely on "stylometry," analyzing subtle linguistic patterns and statistics like:
1. Lexical diversity
Variation in vocabulary and use of rare vs common words. AI-generated text tends to repeat word choices more often.
2. Sentence length variation
AI text can have unnaturally consistent sentence lengths.
3. Sentence structure complexity
Overly simple or complex sentence construction can signal AI.
4. Topic consistency
AI models may stray off-topic or make logical leaps beyond human knowledge.
However, none of these patterns definitively prove AI authorship. Plenty of human writers, especially novices, write similarly repetitive content with limited vocabulary and logic gaps.
And AI like ChatGPT can produce remarkably human-like writing.
So stylometry results in a very high false positive rate, falsely accusing human writers of using AI. Originality.ai has been shown to flag 50-90% of proven human text as "AI-generated."
Even looking for multiple weak indicators in combination cannot reliably determine whether the content is human or AI-written.
The core technique itself is flawed.
In this post, I'll analyze real-world examples ( read experiences) exposing the flaws of AI detectors, the perverse incentives in their business models, and the damage done by stoking unnecessary fears around AI writing.
Unreliable Results
2. A user paid and checked, and even most of his manual rewriting done before 2018 was inaccurately detected as AI-generated.
3. Another Redditor reported their high-quality 1500-word research articles on pharmaceuticals being 50-60% flagged by Originality.ai as AI-written. These were original pieces with cited sources written by a human expert in the field.
4. To further test accuracy, I ran a sample paragraph through both Originality.ai and another text analyzer. The 100-word paragraph from the Book of Genesis came back flagged as AI ( which is my main cover pic ).
Originality.ai flagged it as 100% to "existing artificial text," while another analyzer rated it a 1.8/10 on its "authenticity" scale, leaning heavily toward artificial.
GPTZero flagged the US Constitution as AI.
Yet this was provably human-written content on a monumental topic.
Such high false positive rates clearly show that these tools do not accurately detect AI content or plagiarism. The core models are flawed, erroneously flagging human writing as artificial based on weak stylistic patterns.
Behind-the-scenes
The business model of such companies depends on inflaming fears around AI text - and then selling "detection" as the solution.
领英推荐
Originality.ai's base subscription is $14.95 monthly or a flat rate of $30 for 3000 credits. All for "AI cleansing" service.
The more content it falsely flags as AI, the more writers feel compelled to pay for cleansing to avoid being accused of using AI.
Detectors that aggressively over-flag human text can make the most money. There is no incentive to improve accuracy, only to stoke enough AI paranoia to drive sales.
The model works similarly to a CCTV camera. If a CCTV camera claims to catch 99% of intrusions, what do you think the public would do?
Damaging Writers' Reputations
Beyond inaccuracy, these tools also harm individual writers through false accusations. As shared on Reddit, even new writers with limited vocabulary have been accused of using AI, damaging their reputations.
Some writers suspect they lost clients after detectors wrongly flagged their high-quality financial content as AI-written. Mere insinuation of AI use can severely harm careers, with no way for writers to prove their innocence.
And agencies remind writers that AI detection "protects clients," perpetuating the false notion that most flagged content must be artificial. This assumption harms innocent writers unjustly caught in the flawed AI net.
The high false positive rates of current detectors, perverse revenue incentives, and documented cases of careers damaged reveal the harms of today's AI detectors.
Rather than spreading paranoia, the industry must focus on developing ethical technology and prudent policies to support human creativity.
What's coming next?
Here are some links to find basis:
1. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/13p8r53/paid_for_originalityai_detector_100_ai_detected/
6. https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11ha4qo/gptzero_an_ai_detector_thinks_the_us_constitution/
11. https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/19bv0f2/there_needs_to_be_a_classaction_lawsuit_against/
Content Specialist - I can write content that clicks with the audience. A research analyst, problem-solver, and lifelong learner, with the hope of facing challenges boldly. My DMs are always open.
9 个月I have only one word to describe my experience with AI detection tools, nerve-racking. I lost two clients in one week because of AI. The dudes just won't listen to me. That too, one client checked the content on several AI tools and expected 0% detection. I told him, it was not possible to provide a 0% probability. He bluntly replied, that if it is human-written, it won't show AI content on any AI detection tool. The other client, the good Lord knows, from where he got this annoying AI detection tool, as if, we don't have enough of AI-detection tools to give you nightmares, kept showing up 40-50% probability AI content. No matter how hard I tried, the percentage did not budge. I politely gave up my case and told him that he didn't have to pay for my hard work. I had written around 4-5 articles of 500 words, and everything went down the drain. I thought he would accept the copyleaks screenshot, but no, he insisted on his tool, as it is the best in the market, according to him. Lesson learned, first ask the client, what AI tool they use for checking, and then ask the pay rate. Frankly speaking, I don't use originality.ai, but find copyleaks somewhat reliable. Who is this genius responsible for this mess?
Content Marketing Manager at MyOperator
9 个月Try ZeroGpt.
Helping startups and brands scale through Copywriting
9 个月This happens to me too at some times. A specific client of mine requires content to be passed through Copyleaks. The articles are short-form around 500-800 words. 100% human-written content and the tool shows AI. It wastes a lot of time for the writers to fix the content again and again until it shows human written since the client is not ready to accept the article without this.
Associate Project Manager
9 个月Siddharth Kuna
Freelance Content Writer for B2B SaaS | Helping people bash creative block with evergreen stories on creativity
9 个月Is it time to sue? ????