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.

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.

AI generated content (AIGC) presents considerable challenge to educators around the world. Instructors need to be able to detect such text generated by large language models, either with the naked eye or with the help of some tools. There is also growing need to understand the lexical, syntactic and stylistic features of AIGC. To address these challenges in English language teaching, we first present ArguGPT, a balanced corpus of 4,038 argumentative essays generated by 7 GPT models in response to essay prompts from three sources: (1) in-class or homework exercises, (2) TOEFL and (3) GRE writing tasks. Machine-generated texts are paired with roughly equal number of human-written essays with three score levels matched in essay prompts. We then hire English instructors to distinguish machine essays from human ones. Results show that when first exposed to machine-generated essays, the instructors only have an accuracy of 61% in detecting them. But the number rises to 67% after one round of minimal self-training. Next, we perform linguistic analyses of these essays, which show that machines produce sentences with more complex syntactic structures while human essays tend to be lexically more complex. Finally, we test existing AIGC detectors and build our own detectors using SVMs and RoBERTa. Results suggest that a RoBERTa fine-tuned with the training set of ArguGPT achieves above 90% accuracy in both essay- and sentence-level classification. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive analysis of argumentative essays produced by generative large language models. Machine-authored essays in ArguGPT and our models will be made publicly available at https://github.com/huhailinguist/ArguGPT