Can you trust AI detectors?
AI-generated content is everywhere—and so are tools claiming they can detect it. But if you've ever used one of these AI checkers, you’ll know they’re far from perfect. Universities, publishers, and educators are starting to rely on them in high-stakes decisions, but here's the truth: the tech behind most AI detection tools just isn’t good enough to justify the trust people are putting in it.
The problem with accuracy
Let’s start with the basics. Detection tools like Turnitin and GPTZero are widely used, but studies—including one in the International Journal for Educational Integrity, show they routinely get it wrong. None of the 14 tools tested in that study delivered consistently accurate results. That includes Turnitin.
The most troubling issue? False positives. These tools often flag human-written text as AI-generated, which is especially dangerous in academic settings. A student’s future shouldn’t hinge on a flawed algorithm. Yet many detection tools deliver their verdicts as a neat percentage, giving the illusion of scientific precision where there is none.
Yes, you can game them. But should you?
As detection tools multiply, so do tools built to beat them. You’ll find AI text “humanizers,” rephrasers, and adversarial paraphrasers promising to lower your detection score. The arms race is real.
The catch is that most of these outputs are a mess. A paraphrased abstract might pass an AI checker, but it’s often grammatically broken, semantically confused, and nowhere near submission-ready. Anyone who’s seen a machine rewrite its own output knows the result rarely resembles clean academic English.
A quiet bias no one talks about
Here’s the most serious issue—and the one that gets the least attention: many AI detectors disproportionately flag writing by non-native English speakers. Why? Because unpolished English doesn’t match the patterns the tools associate with “human” writing. This creates a false binary: fluent = human, awkward = machine.
We’ve seen this firsthand. We know of a client who, worried about being accused of AI use, chose to submit their original, error-filled thesis draft because a human edit—designed to improve grammar and flow—increased their “AI score” to nearly 80%. That’s indefensible. No writer should have to choose between clarity and credibility.
Bottom line
We don’t trust AI detectors—and neither should you. The tech isn’t accurate, it’s easily manipulated, and it bakes in bias that disproportionately hurts EFL writers. Relying on them in high-stakes academic or professional settings is, frankly, reckless.
If you’re an educator or supervisor, treat AI checker results—if you use them at all—as a single data point, never a verdict. And if you’re a student or researcher being asked to justify your work against an AI score, push back. These tools aren’t fit for purpose, and no one selling subscriptions to them is going to admit that.
Need help crafting original, credible work that won’t get flagged unfairly? Our editors know the difference between good writing and machine-generated fluff, and we can help you stay on the right side of both quality and ethics.