Why AI Detectors May Mislabel Human-Written Text (Full Transcript)

A brief account showing how an AI detector flagged a human-written academic draft, highlighting false positives and concerns about using detectors in academia.
Download Transcript (DOCX)
Speakers
add Add new speaker

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Can you detect AI content with some of the most common tools available today? Let me show you an example from a paper that I'm about to submit in response to a Nature paper as a commentary. I've come here to CopyLeaks which is one of the most advanced AI content detectors on the market today and this is a free version available but it functions similar to other ones. Copied and pasted my text here and lo and behold this generator detects AI content. If I scroll down here let me see what the content is and this actually thinks that I've written about half the paper here what it's highlighted in red is as AI. Now I'm 100% sure because I wrote this myself without AI that there is no AI content here. I've been accused before by some students as being an actual robot and AI but that's another conversation. These detectors have a ton of false positives and are currently not reliable not safe for use at work or academic purposes in my view.

ai AI Insights
Arow Summary
A speaker tests an AI-content detector (CopyLeaks) on text they wrote themselves for an academic commentary. The tool flags about half the text as AI-generated, which the speaker believes is a false positive. They argue current AI detectors are unreliable and unsafe for workplace or academic use due to high false-positive rates.
Arow Title
AI detectors can falsely flag human-written academic text
Arow Keywords
AI content detection Remove
CopyLeaks Remove
false positives Remove
academic writing Remove
plagiarism tools Remove
reliability Remove
Nature commentary Remove
Arow Key Takeaways
  • Common AI-content detectors can produce significant false positives even on fully human-written text.
  • Free and advanced versions of detectors may behave similarly in highlighting sections as AI-generated.
  • Relying on AI-detection tools for academic or workplace judgments can be risky and unfair.
  • Users should treat AI-detection results as probabilistic signals, not definitive proof.
Arow Sentiments
Negative: Skeptical and critical tone toward AI-detection tools, emphasizing distrust, frustration with false accusations, and concerns about unsafe use in academia/work.
Arow Enter your query
{{ secondsToHumanTime(time) }}
Back
Forward
{{ Math.round(speed * 100) / 100 }}x
{{ secondsToHumanTime(duration) }}
close
New speaker
Add speaker
close
Edit speaker
Save changes
close
Share Transcript