A Quick Experiment with AI Detector and Plagiarism Checker
on My Own Hand-typed Story
Writing and publishing short articles and research has become more and more a passion to me lately. As any publishing effort involves editing, copywriting, plagiarism check or disclosure of its non-existence, and more, I decided to see how accurate is an AI detector – I picked up one random free online checker.
I wrote one paragraph with a story from my childhood. I pasted it and ran the AI detector – the result returned the astonishing 89% Possibly AI written text!!! I wrote another story – same results! For the first story, I left in it all my typos and grammatical mistakes. I have told this story previously only once - in a presentation in another context.
My next experience was even worse – I checked that same first story with a plagiarism checker. The verdict was killing me – 63% Average Plagiarism Level! Am I stealing from myself, or has someone else told my same story and where? Are those online tools AI themselves helping detect AI? If you use grammar proofing tools, is that also flagged as AI (I do use those as English is a second language to me but have not used them in this post, for the sake of this experiment)? I have not tried the suggested options to “Humanize” and “Fix Plagiarism Now”, just got enough for now. But is that how this game is to be played in the future?
This article is also hand-typed and not checked for grammar with any tools- apologies for it being "quick" and "dirty", that is on purpose. But I did run this article against the AI detector up to this full stop. You may guess the results – 81% “Possibly AI” and only 19% hand-written. Now, I hope, you may understand my human frustration. In the end, shall I write or shall I not?! Shall I be, or better not?
PS: Here is the hand-typed story for this experiment:
“When I was a kid, I used to buy bubble gum of a specific brand. The reason was that those gums had a paper wrapping that provided a definition for what “Love is”. Every bubble gum I bought contained a distinct definition of “Love”. How could one simple thing, as “love” has multiple and distinct definitions. The kid, back then, felt fascinated and accumulating new knowledge of a very very important topic of interest. The adult, nowadays, asks himself whether the topic was so complex to be explained with one definition, or it is us – the humans that often overcomplicate the tthings.”
No comments: