FrancesScott
Not a virgin
- Joined
- May 15, 2025
- Posts
- 359
“AI-Writing Detection” Tools Are Flawed- Most AI detection tools rely on measuring perplexity (predictability of text):
- AI-generated text tends to be more predictable (low perplexity) than human writing.
- If a human writes clearly, directly, or formulaically, it can trigger false positives.
- These detectors cannot “see” intent, context, or actual authorship—only patterns.
Human Writing Sometimes Resembles AI Patterns- If a human uses:
- Short, complete, grammatically correct sentences,
- Common phrasing or overuses certain structures,
- Listicles or formulaic structures,
- Avoids personal anecdotes or distinctive style,
then the writing can look “AI-like.”
The Use of Tools and Clean Style- Many humans run their writing through:
- Grammarly
- Quillbot
- Style-checkers
- Predictive text suggestions
which can flatten stylistic quirks, making text resemble AI outputs.
Misunderstanding of What AI Text “Sounds Like”- Accusers often equate “good grammar + clear structure” with “AI writing.”
- They may also suspect AI if the writing seems:
- “Emotionally flat”
- “Overly objective”
- “Verbose but shallow”
- “Non-idiomatic but correct”
even though many human writers naturally write this way.
Cultural & Institutional Pressure- Schools and journals are under pressure to enforce “no AI use” policies.
- This can lead to overzealous accusations based on vague suspicion or unreliable detectors.
Summary: Why do human authors get accused falsely?
Detection tools are inaccurate. Clear, grammatically correct, or formulaic writing triggers suspicion. Use of style tools flattens human uniqueness. People misunderstand what AI-generated text “is.” Institutional pressures cause over-policing.
