This makes your writing more concise and easier to read, improving overall clarity and engagement. A bit of personal touch will always do good for your text’s quality and origin assessment. Read through the AI-generated text and think of what you would have said differently. As you can see, even though chatgpt prompts to avoid ai detection is a high-quality generative AI, reworking and humanizing its texts is better done with the help of other tools.
The website provides little information about how the detector works, but it does take text of varying lengths with the proviso that it's more accurate with higher word counts. You'd think a poetic explanation of generative AI in the words of a fictional cyborg would be detected as artificial quicker than you can say "Schwarzenegger." Not so fast, Arnold. The detectors, for the most part, easily identified the CDO article as written by a human and the Terminator's straightforward essay on generative AI's pros and cons as AI-generated. But the Terminator's poem completely fooled almost all the detectors.
If professors don’t advocate for such open disclosure in our new generative era, we risk offloading the task to a new wave of AI-detection tools that surveil a student’s entire writing process. Grammerly’s new Authorship tool lets students track their own writing process, capturing every move they make in a Google doc. Flint uses linguistic fingerprinting and stylometry chatgpt prompts to avoid ai detection compare student writing against a baseline sample. But none of them require students to think critically about what they learned when using the technology. Google has clearly stated that, "appropriate use of AI or automation is not against our guidelines.
