AI detector
What the AI detector does
This AI text detector does one job: paste in text and find out whether it carries the habits AI writing tends to have, across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and the rest. It's aimed at the question people search for, is this AI generated text, answering with a breakdown of specific signals, each with the reasoning attached, instead of one number pretending to settle something unsettled.
It runs as a server tool: text you paste goes to our AI server to be scored against patterns common to AI writing, and comes back with the flags explained. You get 5 free checks in any rolling 24 hours, no account, no plan, no upgrade screen behind the free runs.
The output is a list, deliberately. An AI detector that hands you a bare percentage asks for blind trust; this one names each pattern (a formulaic opener, an oddly even sentence rhythm, a run of stock transitions) so you can weigh the evidence yourself.
Workflow
How to run the AI detector on your own text in three steps
Three steps, and the third matters most. There's nothing to configure and no file format to match: paste plain text, get a plain-language result.
- 1. Paste your text
- Drop in whatever you're checking: a draft, a submission, a comment. More text gives the check a clearer pattern to read.
- 2. Run the check
- The text goes to our AI server once, gets scored, and the flagged patterns come back to the page. Nothing is queued or run twice.
- 3. Read the flags, not just a score
- Each signal ships with a plain-language reason. Use that to decide what the result actually means for your piece.
The real signals
The patterns an AI text detector actually reads for
Different companies, similar training data, similar habits. Whichever model produced a piece of text, it tends to share the same shape: predictable word choices, evenly paced sentences, and a short list of transitions and hedges it leans on again and again. None of these flag anything alone. The app reads for how many stack up, and how consistently they recur.
- Even sentence rhythm
- Sentences landing at close to the same length, one after another, where human writing tends to lurch instead.
- Formulaic openers
- A first line that could fit any topic, “In today's fast-paced world” being the standard example.
- Stock transitions
- Moreover, furthermore, additionally: correct, formal English that few people naturally reach for.
- Weightless hedges
- “It's important to note that,” phrasing that announces information rather than delivering any.
- Low surprise, word to word
- Prose where each word sits close to the most likely next word, reading smooth but faintly generic.
- A closing recap nobody asked for
- A final paragraph that restates the piece instead of ending it.
Straight answer
Can you actually tell which AI model wrote something?
Not for certain, and the app won't pretend otherwise. The major model families train on overlapping material and keep converging toward the same phrasing habits, so what separates them is a matter of degree, not a clean fingerprint.
A system prompt can erase most of that signal in one instruction: tell a model to write short, plain, unhedged sentences and its default profile mostly disappears. What this app reports is patterns typical of AI writing in general, not a claim about which model, or which person, wrote the text in front of you. Read a match as a lead worth following up, not a finished answer.
That's also why this checker isn't the only detector on the site: one reading for AI writing in general and one tuned to a single model's habits catch different things, so a model-specific check is worth a look when the general one flags something.
Why flags happen
Why false positives happen
The patterns this app looks for are also, in places, just good writing. Careful academic prose hedges on purpose, since overstating a claim is the worse mistake. A rigid house style banning contractions and favouring even, measured sentences reads the way a model does, for reasons that have nothing to do with one.
Second-language writers get flagged often, unfairly. Formal connectors and steady sentence structure are exactly what an ESL course teaches, and what a good editor asks for. A flag here says something about a pattern, not the person who wrote it.
If you're flagged
What to do if you're accused of using AI
A flag is a signal, not a finished case, and treating it as one hurts the person on the other end. If your own writing gets questioned, evidence of process beats an argument about the tool.
- Keep your drafts
- Outlines, early versions and marked-up notes are the clearest sign a piece was built up, not produced whole.
- Keep version history on
- Google Docs, Word and most editors log revisions automatically. Don't clear it while a question is open.
- Be ready to talk through your choices
- Someone who actually wrote a piece can explain why a specific line reads the way it does. That's hard to fake.
- Ask what the flag actually found
- A named pattern (sentence rhythm, a stock-phrase cluster) can be discussed. A bare score can't.
In practice
Who uses the AI detector, and when
The same checker, opened for a handful of different reasons.
- Editorial teams
- A first pass on submissions, to route unedited AI drafts before committing editorial time.
- Teachers
- One input among several when a submission reads unusually polished, never the sole basis for a decision.
- Hiring managers
- Checking whether a writing sample matches the voice demonstrated live in an interview.
- Writers
- Running a draft through before submitting it, to see whether their own habits read as machine-typical.
- Community moderators
- A first read on a batch of posts sounding oddly alike, ahead of a closer manual look.
The limit
How many free AI detector checks you get
This app runs the check server-side: scoring against AI writing patterns needs a model too large to ship into a page, so each run is a single round trip rather than local computation.
That trip is metered, not unlimited: 5 free checks in any rolling 24-hour window, tracked without an account. There's no paid tier behind the limit; it simply reopens as the window rolls forward.
Five checks covers ordinary use: one submission, one email, one paragraph under review. For a longer batch, spacing checks across the day works better than burning the allowance at once.