AI Text Detector: Detecting AI-Generated Content

Our AI text detection tool helps you find out whether content was written by a human or generated by AI. It uses advanced language analysis, machine learning, and semantic modeling to provide accurate results. The best part? It’s completely free to use—no sign-up needed!

Analyze Text

This report explores different ways to spot text written by AI. These methods include using statistics, studying language patterns, and applying advanced machine learning tools. It also talks about some current problems. One big issue is false positives—when writing by a real person gets wrongly marked as AI. Another challenge is that some AI models are getting better at hiding their tracks and avoiding detection.

Perplexity and Burstiness

Perplexity is a measure used in language models to show how predictable a piece of text is. Simply put, it tells us how “surprised” a model is by the words. If the perplexity is low, the model finds the text easy to predict. If it’s high, the text is harder for the model to guess.

AI detectors use this idea by checking a passage’s perplexity with a known model. The thinking behind it is that AI-written text often has very low perplexity because it’s created by a similar model. That makes the text highly predictable. For example, if the input is “Hi there, I am an AI ___,” a model will probably complete it with “assistant.” That’s a predictable result, so the perplexity is low. A human, on the other hand, might write something less expected, which would increase the perplexity.

To measure this, the detector looks at the probability of each word in the passage and multiplies them to get an overall perplexity score. If the score is too low, the text might be AI-generated. That’s because human writing usually includes more surprises or variety.

Burstiness is another useful clue. It refers to how much perplexity changes from one sentence to the next. Human writing tends to mix things up — sometimes it’s complex, sometimes simple. That creates a pattern with lots of ups and downs. In contrast, AI text usually sounds smoother and more even.

Our detector checks how much this variation happens across the text. When a human writes, sentence length and word choice often change. This creates a high “burstiness” pattern. But AI models often use the same strategy all the way through, so the variation is low.

So, if a document has a steady, low perplexity across every sentence, that’s a warning sign it could be written by AI. But if the perplexity goes up and down a lot, it’s more likely to be human. Many detectors now use both signals: if a passage shows both low perplexity and low burstiness, it’s likely AI. But if both are high or vary a lot, it’s probably human.

Still, these tools aren’t perfect. Perplexity and burstiness depend on the model doing the checking. A sentence might look different to different models. Also, some human writing can be simple or follow a fixed pattern. That might make it look like AI. And if a piece of text is similar to what the model was trained on, it might get flagged even if it’s human-written.

Stylometric Analysis

Stylometry is the study of writing style. It helps identify who wrote a text by analyzing their unique way of writing. In AI detection, stylometric analysis looks for patterns that may show if a text was written by a human or an AI. The idea is that AI models—just like human authors—have their own “writing fingerprints.” These can be spotted through statistical features.

Stylometry works by examining things like:

• Word Use: This includes average word length, how rich the vocabulary is, and how often rare or common words appear. AI often uses a more limited or balanced set of words, unlike humans, who might choose more unique vocabulary.
• Sentence Structure: This looks at how long sentences are, how much sentence length changes, and how often certain punctuation or word patterns appear. AI tends to stick with a certain rhythm, while humans vary their sentence styles more naturally.
• Function Words: These are short words like “the,” “of,” or “at.” People use these in personal and unpredictable ways, while AI tends to follow more general patterns.
• Formatting Habits: This includes how often contractions, abbreviations, or emphasis are used. It also looks at spacing, capital letters, and other quirks in how the text is laid out.
• Emotion and Tone: This checks for emotional language or things like metaphors. AI can sound neutral or slightly off in tone, especially if it’s not told how to write emotionally.

Stylometric tools collect many of these features from a piece of writing and feed them into a machine learning system like a random forest or a neural network. These systems are trained to tell the difference between human and AI writing. This method was first used to figure out which human wrote a certain text, but now it’s used to tell whether a piece was written by a person or a machine.

One example is a tool called StyloAI. It checks 31 different writing features—things like word variety, sentence structure, and tone—and uses a Random Forest classifier to make its prediction. It was able to detect AI-written essays with up to 98% accuracy in one study. The features that worked best included repeated use of common words, less variety in sentence style, and certain readability scores. In other cases, adding stylometry to deep learning models helped detect AI-generated tweets, especially when combined with features like average word length and part-of-speech patterns.

One reason stylometry is effective is that, even though large language models are fluent, they don’t copy human style perfectly. AI tends to produce text that sounds smooth and average, lacking the small errors or unique word choices that people often make. Stylometric tools can spot these differences. Popular techniques include checking word pair patterns (n-grams), counting how often certain function words are used, and looking at reading difficulty scores like the Flesch Reading Ease. AI might also use fewer personal touches—like “I” or “my”—in situations where a human would naturally include them.

Still, stylometry isn’t perfect. It works best when AI and human texts are clearly different in style. But as AI gets better at copying how people write—or is trained to sound like certain authors—these differences can shrink. Also, style changes based on what you’re writing. A news article won’t look like a personal blog, even if both are written by humans. So it’s important to compare similar types of texts.

Even with its limits, stylometry is still a helpful tool. It not only supports AI detection, but also gives useful insight into how machine writing differs from human writing—through features like sentence length, word variety, and tone.

Language and Sentence Structure Analysis

Beyond just style, researchers also look at grammar and sentence structure to spot AI-written text. One thing they’ve noticed is that AI often writes in a formulaic way. Studies have shown that large models tend to reuse certain sentence structures—called syntactic templates—more than human writers do. For example, AI may often repeat patterns like adjective–adjective–noun phrases.

In one case, a model wrote a movie review using phrases like “a unique and intense viewing experience” and “a highly original and impressive debut” very close together. These phrases aren’t wrong, and humans do use them. But the study found that each AI model had its own favorite grammar patterns, and it used them much more often than a person would. In short, the frequency of specific part-of-speech (POS) sequences—like how often “adjective–adjective–noun” or “subject–verb–object” appears—can be a clue. By analyzing these grammar patterns, detectors can spot strange patterns that don’t match human writing. Each AI model tends to repeat certain styles—some sound flowery, others are blunt and factual. These habits form a kind of grammar “fingerprint.”

Tools like constituency or dependency parsers help break down sentences into tree structures. These trees show how parts of a sentence connect. With them, we can look at things like how deep the sentence is, whether it uses complex clauses, or what types of grammar rules it follows. Older or smaller AI models often make simpler trees. They might use shorter sentences linked by simple words like “and” or “but,” or sometimes they create weird grammar patterns when things go wrong. Human writers usually mix short and long sentences on purpose, depending on the context.

Strangely enough, perfect grammar can also be a warning sign. Most modern AI models avoid common mistakes like wrong verb tenses or missing subjects. Their grammar is usually flawless. But people, especially when writing fast or informally, often make small grammar errors or typos. So if a student who usually makes minor mistakes suddenly turns in an essay without a single grammar issue, that might raise some eyebrows. Some guidelines even mention that overly clean grammar could be a hint the text was written by AI.

Another useful clue is coherence and flow. Human writing usually follows a clear path. It might start with an intro, give some background, explore the topic, and wrap up with a conclusion. Along the way, people sometimes take small detours—maybe using an example, a joke, or a comparison—but everything generally makes sense. AI text can seem fine at first, but if you read closely, things may feel off. A sentence might sound okay on its own but not fit with the one before it. Or the text may repeat something it already said, or suddenly jump to an unrelated point. These odd shifts in topic or logic can feel unnatural to the reader.

To catch this, researchers use discourse analysis. One method compares how similar the meaning is between one sentence and the next. If the text jumps around too much, that could be a sign of AI. Another approach looks at the structure of the argument—does it build logically from one point to the next, or does it just list facts without a clear order? AI often struggles to build well-organized arguments like humans do.

Another way to check for AI is to look at how often certain POS tag sequences appear. While the total number of nouns or verbs might be similar in human and AI writing, the order of these words can be very different. For example, AI models tend to use patterns like “Determiner + Adjective + Noun” more than people do—phrases like “the curious case” or “the outstanding result.” These are common in training data, so models repeat them often. A human might use them too, but not as frequently or as evenly.

Detectors can be trained to look for these patterns by comparing the frequency of POS sequences in AI and human writing. In one experiment, researchers looked at Universal POS tags and compared how often certain tag sequences occurred. The method helped, but it wasn’t as strong on its own as semantic approaches. Still, when you combine these grammar clues with other signals, they make AI detection more accurate.

Curvature and BERT-Based Analysis

As AI detection methods improve, researchers are looking into deeper features of how language is generated. One new idea focuses on how text behaves in probability space—especially how it curves. This approach is used in a method called DetectGPT.

The main idea behind DetectGPT is that when a large language model (LLM) writes something, the text usually sits at a high point—called a local maximum—in the model’s probability function. In simple terms, that means the model thinks its own output is very likely. So, if you slightly change the text—by reordering words or swapping some for synonyms—the new version should seem less likely to the model. That drop in probability shows up as a curve that bends downward. Mathematically, this is called negative curvature.

But with human-written text, that pattern doesn’t always hold. Since humans don’t write to match a model’s probability exactly, changing a few words might actually make the model think the new version is more likely. So DetectGPT looks for this difference. It takes a piece of text, makes small random changes, and checks how the model’s probability score changes. If the original version always scores higher than the changes, it’s likely the text was written by the model itself. This works without needing any training data—it’s called a zero-shot method because it just needs access to the model for testing the probabilities.

To do this, DetectGPT looks at the second derivative of the text’s log-probability—a math term for how much the likelihood curve bends. In practice, it works by comparing the original text’s score with the scores of many slightly changed versions. If the original keeps winning, the method says the curve has negative curvature, which points to AI generation.

This method works well. For example, when tested on fake news written by a powerful 20-billion-parameter GPT-NeoX model, DetectGPT reached an AUROC of 0.95. That’s a strong score and much better than other zero-shot tools, which scored closer to 0.8. What makes DetectGPT special is that it doesn’t look at the writing style or meaning—it only checks how the model itself behaves when generating and evaluating text.

There is one catch, though. To use DetectGPT effectively, you need access to the same model—or one that’s very similar—to the one that might have created the text. If the text came from a different model, the results might not be as accurate. Still, this idea of using probability curvature is a smart and powerful way to detect AI-written text by examining the model’s own inner workings.

Another advanced method for detecting AI text uses transformer embeddings, especially from models like BERT. These models turn text into high-dimensional vectors—called embeddings—that capture meaning and structure. These embeddings can help in two main ways: (1) by feeding them into a classifier, and (2) by checking how consistent and meaningful the text is.

The first approach is more common. Many modern detectors fine-tune models like BERT or RoBERTa using examples of both human and AI text. This helps the model learn a space where the two types of writing form separate clusters. In other words, the embeddings help tell the difference. Studies show that transformer embeddings give strong features for detection. Some researchers have also worked on making these models better across different topics. For example, one study found that some directions in BERT’s embedding space captured surface-level patterns—like topic or word frequency—that don’t always apply to new types of text. By removing those parts of the embedding, they made the detector work better across various AI models and topics—sometimes improving accuracy by over 10%. This shows that focusing on deeper language signals (not just style) can make AI detectors more reliable.

The second use of embeddings is to check how well the text flows and stays on topic. Because embeddings capture meaning, we can measure how similar each sentence is to the next. In human writing, ideas usually build on one another. A sentence connects naturally to the one before it, and the whole piece follows a clear path. But AI text may seem fine at first and then suddenly shift topics, or start repeating the same point in different ways. By turning each sentence into an embedding, we can compare how closely related they are. If the next sentence is too different, that might mean the topic shifted in a strange way. If all the sentences are too similar, that could mean the model is repeating itself. Some detectors even use a semantic coherence score to check how well the text holds together based on meaning.

There’s also a related idea called embedding perplexity. This checks how likely a sentence is, given the one before it. It’s similar to next sentence prediction. Models fine-tuned for that task can tell when a sentence doesn’t really fit in context, which can help spot AI-generated sections that lose the thread.

Another experimental idea looks at the curvature of text in embedding space. Imagine each sentence or paragraph as a point in space. As the text goes on, these points form a kind of path. Human writing may take a more complex route with subtle changes in topic or tone. AI writing, on the other hand, might follow a smoother, simpler path or swing back and forth in a pattern. Some researchers look at how sharply these paths turn or whether certain parts stick out. These outliers could be signs of AI generation.

Transformer embeddings also tend to cluster in a narrow space—this is called anisotropy. That means the embeddings don’t spread out evenly. AI text, which often uses more generic language, might produce tighter clusters. Human text, with more variation in word choice and tone, might be more spread out. Some researchers are working on tools like IsoScore, which measures how uniform these embeddings are. These kinds of signals are still being explored, but they could become useful tools for future AI detectors.

Challenges and Limits of AI Text Detection

Detecting AI-generated text is hard, and there are many reasons why current tools don’t always get it right. Below are some of the main challenges and issues researchers face:

• False Positives on Real Human Text: Some human-written content is wrongly flagged as AI. A well-known case is the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which some tools rated as 99% likely to be AI-written. Why? Because it’s formal, structured, and shows up a lot in training data—so it gets a low perplexity score, just like AI text. Similar problems happen with Wikipedia articles. These texts are real, but the tools mistake their “perfect” style as machine-generated.
• Bias Against Non-Native Writers: AI detectors can unfairly target writing by non-native English speakers. Their essays may use simpler words or more basic sentence structures. Detectors sometimes misread this as AI output. A study from Stanford found that many detectors labeled ESL student writing as machine-generated. This is a serious fairness issue. Writers shouldn’t be penalized just because their style doesn’t match what a tool expects from a fluent native speaker.
• Evading Detection: As detection tools improve, so do tricks to avoid them. Simple changes—like swapping words, changing sentence order, or adding small grammar errors—can fool many systems. Other methods include adding invisible characters or tweaking AI settings. Some even use special tools to rewrite AI text so it looks more human. This back-and-forth is like an arms race between AI creators and detectors.
• New Models and Topics: Most detectors are trained on certain AI models and datasets. When they face text from a new model or topic, their performance often drops. Each model writes in its own way, and detectors that work well for GPT-2 might fail with GPT-4. Training on mixed outputs helps a bit, but keeping up with new language models is still a big challenge.
• Balancing False Positives and False Negatives: If a detector is too strict, it might wrongly flag human writing (false positives). If it’s too loose, it might miss AI text (false negatives). Finding the right balance is tricky. Different users have different needs. A teacher might prefer to catch all AI use, even if it means more mistakes. A news site might want to avoid false flags at all costs. Also, the “confidence scores” some tools give (like 99% AI) don’t always reflect real certainty.
• Short Text and Mixed Authorship: Detecting AI in short texts is much harder. Many tools need a minimum word count to work. It’s also tough to deal with writing that’s part human, part AI. Most detectors are built to make a simple choice—AI or human—but real-world writing is often a mix. Spotting AI use at the sentence or paragraph level is still a new and developing area.
• Data and Testing Issues: It’s hard to test detectors properly. Older models like early GPT-3 are easier to spot. Newer models like GPT-4 are much better at hiding. Also, researchers don’t always have access to the latest model outputs. If people start editing AI text before sharing it, this can mess with the data and make benchmarks less reliable.
• Limits of Text-Based Detection: As AI improves, its writing gets closer to human quality. At some point, just looking at the text alone might not be enough. Future detection might depend more on built-in tools like watermarks or metadata that show where the content came from. For now, some statistical patterns still help—but that might not last forever.

Because of all these challenges, AI detection results should be used as a clue—not as final proof. A mix of tools, human judgment, and context is the best approach. For example, many universities won’t punish students based only on a detector’s results. The field is still changing fast, and tools must keep evolving as AI writing gets better and harder to spot.