As the use of AI tools by students has become more prevalent, instructors have started using AI detection tools like GPTZero and QuillBot to detect AI written text. However, the reliability of these detectors remains uncertain. In our study, we focused mostly on the success rate of GPTZero, the most-used AI detector, in identifying AI-generated texts based on different lengths of randomly submitted essays: short (40-100 word count), medium (100-350 word count), and long (350-800 word count). We gathered a data set consisting of twenty-eight AI-generated papers and fifty human-written papers. With this randomized essay data, papers were individually plugged into GPTZero and measured for percentage of AI generation and confidence. A vast majority of the AI-generated papers were detected accurately (ranging from 91-100% AI believed generation), while the human generated essays fluctuated; there were a handful of false positives. These findings suggest that although GPTZero is effective at detecting purely AI-generated content, its reliability in distinguishing human-authored texts is limited. Educators should therefore exercise caution when relying solely on AI detection tools.

The development of Generative AI Large Language Models (LLMs) raised the alarm regarding identifying content produced through generative AI or humans. In one case, issues arise when students heavily rely on such tools in a manner that can affect the development of their writing or coding skills. Other issues of plagiarism also apply. This study aims to support efforts to detect and identify textual content generated using LLM tools. We hypothesize that LLMs-generated text is detectable by machine learning (ML), and investigate ML models that can recognize and differentiate texts generated by multiple LLMs tools. We leverage several ML and Deep Learning (DL) algorithms such as Random Forest (RF), and Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN), and utilized Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) to understand the important features in attribution. Our method is divided into 1) binary classification to differentiate between human-written and AI-text, and 2) multi classification, to differentiate between human-written text and the text generated by the five different LLM tools (ChatGPT, LLaMA, Google Bard, Claude, and Perplexity). Results show high accuracy in the multi and binary classification. Our model outperformed GPTZero with 98.5\% accuracy to 78.3\%. Notably, GPTZero was unable to recognize about 4.2\% of the observations, but our model was able to recognize the complete test dataset. XAI results showed that understanding feature importance across different classes enables detailed author/source profiles. Further, aiding in attribution and supporting plagiarism detection by highlighting unique stylistic and structural elements ensuring robust content originality verification.

This study seeks to enhance academic integrity by providing tools to detect AI-generated content in student work using advanced technologies. The findings promote transparency and accountability, helping educators maintain ethical standards and supporting the responsible integration of AI in education. A key contribution of this work is the generation of the CyberHumanAI dataset, which has 1000 observations, 500 of which are written by humans and the other 500 produced by ChatGPT. We evaluate various machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) algorithms on the CyberHumanAI dataset comparing human-written and AI-generated content from Large Language Models (LLMs) (i.e., ChatGPT). Results demonstrate that traditional ML algorithms, specifically XGBoost and Random Forest, achieve high performance (83% and 81% accuracies respectively). Results also show that classifying shorter content seems to be more challenging than classifying longer content. Further, using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) we identify discriminative features influencing the ML model's predictions, where human-written content tends to use a practical language (e.g., use and allow). Meanwhile AI-generated text is characterized by more abstract and formal terms (e.g., realm and employ). Finally, a comparative analysis with GPTZero show that our narrowly focused, simple, and fine-tuned model can outperform generalized systems like GPTZero. The proposed model achieved approximately 77.5% accuracy compared to GPTZero's 48.5% accuracy when tasked to classify Pure AI, Pure Human, and mixed class. GPTZero showed a tendency to classify challenging and small-content cases as either mixed or unrecognized while our proposed model showed a more balanced performance across the three classes. Keywords: LLMs, Digital Technology, Education, Plagiarism, Human AI 1. Introduction Our communication practices are quickly changing due to the emergence of generative AI models.

The availability of high-quality APIs for Large Language Models (LLMs) has facilitated the widespread creation of Machine-Generated Content (MGC), posing challenges such as academic plagiarism and the spread of misinformation. Existing MGC detectors often focus solely on surface-level information, overlooking implicit and structural features. This makes them susceptible to deception by surface-level sentence patterns, particularly for longer texts and in texts that have been subsequently paraphrased. To overcome these challenges, we introduce novel methodologies and datasets. Besides the publicly available dataset Plagbench, we developed the paraphrased Long-Form Question and Answer (paraLFQA) and paraphrased Writing Prompts (paraWP) datasets using GPT and DIPPER, a discourse paraphrasing tool, by extending artifacts from their original versions. To address the challenge of detecting highly similar paraphrased texts, we propose MhBART, an encoder-decoder model designed to emulate human writing style while incorporating a novel difference score mechanism. This model outperforms strong classifier baselines and identifies deceptive sentence patterns. To better capture the structure of longer texts at document level, we propose DTransformer, a model that integrates discourse analysis through PDTB preprocessing to encode structural features. It results in substantial performance gains across both datasets -- 15.5\% absolute improvement on paraLFQA, 4\% absolute improvement on paraWP, and 1.5\% absolute improvement on M4 compared to SOTA approaches.

The most popular writers on Substack earn up to seven figures each year primarily by persuading readers to pay for their work. The newsletter platform's subscription-driven business model offers creators different incentives than platforms like Facebook or YouTube, where traffic and engagement are king. In theory, that should help shield Substack from the wave of click-courting AI content that's flooding the internet. But a new analysis shared exclusively with WIRED indicates that Substack hosts plenty of AI-generated writing, some of which is published in newsletters with hundreds of thousands of subscribers. The AI-detection startup GPTZero scanned 25 to 30 recent posts published by the 100 most popular newsletters on Substack to see whether they contained AI-generated content.

The rise of AI-generated content in popular information sources raises significant concerns about accountability, accuracy, and bias amplification. Beyond directly impacting consumers, the widespread presence of this content poses questions for the long-term viability of training language models on vast internet sweeps. We use GPTZero, a proprietary AI detector, and Binoculars, an open-source alternative, to establish lower bounds on the presence of AI-generated content in recently created Wikipedia pages. Both detectors reveal a marked increase in AI-generated content in recent pages compared to those from before the release of GPT-3.5. With thresholds calibrated to achieve a 1% false positive rate on pre-GPT-3.5 articles, detectors flag over 5% of newly created English Wikipedia articles as AI-generated, with lower percentages for German, French, and Italian articles. Flagged Wikipedia articles are typically of lower quality and are often self-promotional or partial towards a specific viewpoint on controversial topics.

As LLMs rapidly advance, increasing concerns arise regarding risks about actual authorship of texts we see online and in real world. The task of distinguishing LLM-authored texts is complicated by the nuanced and overlapping behaviors of both machines and humans. In this paper, we challenge the current practice of considering LLM-generated text detection a binary classification task of differentiating human from AI. Instead, we introduce a novel ternary text classification scheme, adding an "undecided" category for texts that could be attributed to either source, and we show that this new category is crucial to understand how to make the detection result more explainable to lay users. This research shifts the paradigm from merely classifying to explaining machine-generated texts, emphasizing need for detectors to provide clear and understandable explanations to users. Our study involves creating four new datasets comprised of texts from various LLMs and human authors. Based on new datasets, we performed binary classification tests to ascertain the most effective SOTA detection methods and identified SOTA LLMs capable of producing harder-to-detect texts. We constructed a new dataset of texts generated by two top-performing LLMs and human authors, and asked three human annotators to produce ternary labels with explanation notes. This dataset was used to investigate how three top-performing SOTA detectors behave in new ternary classification context. Our results highlight why "undecided" category is much needed from the viewpoint of explainability. Additionally, we conducted an analysis of explainability of the three best-performing detectors and the explanation notes of the human annotators, revealing insights about the complexity of explainable detection of machine-generated texts. Finally, we propose guidelines for developing future detection systems with improved explanatory power.

This article gives an overview of the field of LLM text recognition. Different approaches and implemented detectors for the recognition of LLM-generated text are presented. In addition to discussing the implementations, the article focuses on benchmarking the detectors. Although there are numerous software products for the recognition of LLM-generated text, with a focus on ChatGPT-like LLMs, the quality of the recognition (recognition rate) is not clear. Furthermore, while it can be seen that scientific contributions presenting their novel approaches strive for some kind of comparison with other approaches, the construction and independence of the evaluation dataset is often not comprehensible. As a result, discrepancies in the performance evaluation of LLM detectors are often visible due to the different benchmarking datasets. This article describes the creation of an evaluation dataset and uses this dataset to investigate the different detectors. The selected detectors are benchmarked against each other.

Detecting when text has been generated by tools like ChatGPT is a difficult task. Popular artificial- intelligence-detection tools, like GPTZero, may provide some guidance for users by telling them when something was written by a bot and not a human, but even specialized software is not foolproof and can spit out false positives. As a journalist who started covering AI detection over a year ago, I wanted to curate some of WIRED's best articles on the topic to help readers like you better understand this complicated issue. Have even more questions about spotting outputs from ChatGPT and other chatbot tools? Sign up for my AI Unlocked newsletter, and reach out to me directly with anything AI-related that you would like answered or want WIRED to explore more.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly commonplace, concern about distinguishing between human and AI text increases as well. The growing power of these models is of particular concern to teachers, who may worry that students will use LLMs to write school assignments. Facing a technology with which they are unfamiliar, teachers may turn to publicly-available AI text detectors. Yet the accuracy of many of these detectors has not been thoroughly verified, posing potential harm to students who are falsely accused of academic dishonesty. In this paper, we evaluate three different AI text detectors--Kirchenbauer et al. watermarks, ZeroGPT, and GPTZero--against human and AI-generated essays. We find that watermarking results in a high false positive rate, and that ZeroGPT has both high false positive and false negative rates. Further, we are able to significantly increase the false negative rate of all detectors by using ChatGPT 3.5 to paraphrase the original AI-generated texts, thereby effectively bypassing the detectors.