detect-ai-text

Detect AI-Generated Text

Overview

Reviews text for linguistic patterns commonly associated with AI-generated content and recommends dedicated detection tools. Pattern-based — not a classifier.

Critical Limitations

No pattern check can reliably confirm or deny AI authorship. Understand these constraints before reporting any finding:

Limitation	Why it matters
High false-positive rate	Non-native English speakers, formal academic writing, and some disciplines naturally match AI patterns
Easily evaded	One pass through a paraphrasing tool removes most detectable signals
No ground truth	Without the original prompt or generation log, certainty is impossible
Model-specific	Patterns differ across GPT-4, Claude, Gemini, etc. — no single fingerprint covers all

Never label text as definitively AI-generated based on pattern analysis alone. Report findings as indicators, not verdicts.

Workflow

1. Receive text — paste the passage to review
2. Scan for patterns — check against the indicator list below
3. Count and weight signals — note how many categories are triggered
4. Return assessment — flagged passages + indicator summary + confidence level
5. Recommend tools — suggest dedicated detectors for a second opinion

AI Text Indicators

Linguistic Patterns

Indicator	Description	Example
Transitional over-reliance	Excessive use of Furthermore, Moreover, Additionally, It is worth noting that	Every paragraph opens with a connector
Hedging clusters	Dense stacking of hedges: may potentially suggest, could possibly indicate	More than 2 hedges per sentence
Balanced sentence rhythm	Unnaturally consistent sentence length throughout — no short punchy sentences, no very long ones	All sentences 20–30 words
Generic examples	Vague, non-specific illustrations (for example, in many industries…)	No concrete names, dates, or places
Symmetrical structure	Every paragraph has exactly: topic sentence + 2–3 supporting points + conclusion	Robot-like consistency across all paragraphs
Filler openings	It is important to note that, In today's world, In conclusion, it is clear that	Common AI boilerplate phrases
Passive voice saturation	Unusually high proportion of passive constructions throughout	Entire sections with no active voice
Overly comprehensive lists	Lists that feel exhaustive but shallow — covering every angle with no depth	Bullet lists of 6–8 items that say nothing specific

Content Patterns

Indicator	Description
No concrete detail	Lacks specific data, named studies, dates, or institutions that a human researcher would naturally include
No personal stance	Presents all sides without ever committing to a position (in contexts where that is expected)
Temporal vagueness	Avoids specific years; uses recently, in modern times, contemporary
Hallucination markers	Plausible-sounding but unverifiable citations — check any cited sources carefully

Confidence Assessment

Count triggered indicator categories:

Triggers	Assessment
0–1	Low suspicion — consistent with human writing
2–3	Moderate suspicion — some AI-associated patterns; inconclusive
4–5	High suspicion — multiple strong signals; recommend dedicated tool
6+	Very high suspicion — pervasive AI patterns; strongly recommend tool + human review

Always report as: "X of Y indicators triggered — [Low/Moderate/High/Very High] suspicion. Not conclusive."

Dedicated Detection Tools

For a second opinion, use purpose-built classifiers:

Tool	Notes
GPTZero (gptzero.me)	Free tier available; highlights sentence-level perplexity
Originality.ai	Paid; popular for academic use
Copyleaks AI Detector	Combines plagiarism + AI detection
Turnitin AI Writing Indicator	Integrated into Turnitin; used by many universities
Writer AI Content Detector	Free; basic

All tools have false-positive rates of 5–20% depending on text type. Non-native English, highly technical text, and legal/formal writing score higher regardless of authorship.

Ukrainian-Specific Notes

Issue	Guidance
Кальки з англійської	Ukrainian AI text is often generated in English then machine-translated — look for unnatural calques: приймати до уваги, в той час як, на основі вищезазначеного
AI-кліше українською	Common Ukrainian AI boilerplate: варто зазначити, слід відмітити, важливо підкреслити, у сучасних умовах, в умовах глобалізації
Суржик в AI тексті	Ukrainian AI output sometimes mixes Russian and Ukrainian — both a grammar error and an AI signal
Інструменти	Most English-focused detectors (GPTZero, Originality.ai) are less accurate for Ukrainian text; prefer Unicheck's AI detection module or Copyleaks (which supports Ukrainian)
Хибні спрацювання	Formal Ukrainian bureaucratic and academic register naturally resembles AI output — be especially cautious before flagging Ukrainian academic text

Common Mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Reporting a verdict ("this IS AI-written")	Always use "indicators suggest" / "patterns consistent with"
Flagging formal academic register as AI	Academic writing naturally uses many AI-associated patterns
Ignoring context	A student known for poor writing submitting perfect prose is different from a native speaker's thesis
Not checking cited sources	Hallucinated references are the most actionable signal — always verify citations