Talk:Artificial intelligence content detection

Article title

Hi. Ideally, the title of the Wikipedia article should correspond to an expression that is commonly used or that people would intuitively search for. My impression is that it is not so much the case with the title "Artificial intelligence detection software". A search on Google seems to return other formulations like "AI detection", "AI detector", "AI content detection", "AI content detector" or "AI detection tool". Do you think we should keep the current title, or does one of these alternative names seem better ? Alenoach (talk) 01:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alenoach: Hi there, thanks for taking an interest in this article. As the article creator, I admit I struggled with what to call this, and I've no objections if you wish to move this article to a more recognisable title. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that the title is miselading, but for a different reason. The article only contains information about the unreliability of AI content detection, not how they work or major products. Winter the Mute (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I would welcome any addition you have on how AI works and major products related to content detection - provided it's all reliably sourced and not used as a vehicle for promoting any particular software. GnocchiFan (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 6 November 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Artificial intelligence content detection. Discussion arrived at a consensus to move to Artificial intelligence content detection, due to MOS:ACROTITLE and an consensus to focus on the more general concept than on the tools. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Artificial intelligence detection software → AI content detectorAI content detector – Per the above discussion on the talk page, this may be a more common term, while also being encyclopedic and not promoting a particular detection software. Seeking user input; as the article creator, I'm unsure what to name this article. GnocchiFan (talk) 17:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Gnnochi, yes the other user makes a good point; the accessibility of this piece is important.

As a contributor to your page, I must say that while the original title does sound more formal, I am in favor of the change. Comintell (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I personally have a slight preference for "AI content detection" over "AI content detector", because it's maybe better to focus on the more general concept than on the tools that apply that concept (I don't know if this explanation makes sense). But both names are ok.

Once renamed, we can make redirects from the other alternative names to the new main title, which should increase the visibility of your article. Alenoach (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I tend to agree with you on this. Thanks for the constructive feedback; I really appreciate it! 🙂 GnocchiFan (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Mostly Support - I'm onboard with replacing detection software with content detector or content detection and prefer the latter. I don't think we should replace Artificial intelligence with AI because of MOS:ACROTITLE and because this particular acronym looks ambiguous in many fonts (could be mistaken for diminutive of Albert). ~Kvng (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support move to Artificial intelligence content detector and oppose move to AI content detector. I think that the proposed "content detector" is an improvement over the current title, but I also don't think that MOS:ACROTITLE would guide us towards abbreviating "AI" here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referencing Neurodiversity and Non-Native english speakers

@GnocchiFan I'm mentioning you since you're the creator of this article and your feedback would be appreciated. In the last year, there has been a lot of research regarding AI Content Detection specifically in it's apparent bias towards falsely flagging work written by people who are neurodiverse, or whose first language isn't English.

1) Stanford on Non-Native Eng. Speakers - 1a) The research paper from 1

2) This references ND People too - 2a) This is a news story referenced in 2

I do also think some separation could be done, adding subsections (under accuracy issues?) for False Negatives and False Positives, more could be done but that's off the top of my head. If you're interested, let me know, I have more sources if needed!! :) EM 1NH3 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@EM 1NH3: Hi there! I agree that these would be good additions to the article and would improve it. I had heard about the issues relating to non-native English speakers; I haven't read much on the difficulties with neurodiverse people (thanks for the read!) but as someone who is AuDHD myself it doesn't surprise me.

I also think the subsection idea is good too. I won't be able to make any changes myself (for personal reasons, I'm not able to edit Wikipedia as much as I'd like and can only do on mobile, which isn't great), but please feel free to go ahead and make these edits. GnocchiFan (talk) 08:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan: I quickly wrote up a false flags subsection, though it could use some polishing up. If you see anything that should be changed or that sticks out, or even just a reformatting, please let me know and I can do it!

Thank you for such a fast response yesterday btw! EM 1NH3 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@EM 1NH3: No worries at all! The section looks good, I retitled it as "false positives and false negatives" as "false flags" may have other meanings; if you can think of a more concise title let me know. GnocchiFan (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@GnocchiFan: That makes sense! I had gone back and forth between those two titles, just settled for the shorter one. All looks good! Thank you for checking it over :D EM 1NH3 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Neologisms?

"Student Cheating Is Becoming Impossible to Detect in an A.I. Era" I was considering using that as a source, but I can't tell if the terms "humanizer" and "autotyper" used there are in common use or were created for that article. Mapsax (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Text detection: the mechanism is missing (perplexity and burstiness)

Hi all. Quick disclosure: I'm an editor at Silent Room, an online magazine about AI and writing — per WP:COI I'm proposing here instead of editing the article.

The article documents the accuracy studies and false-positive cases well, but it never explains how these tools actually work: "perplexity" and "burstiness" appear nowhere in it. A reader leaves knowing detectors fail, but not why the failures are structural. It also omits two well-documented facts: OpenAI shutting down its own classifier, and Vanderbilt disabling Turnitin's detector after doing the false-positive arithmetic.

For the "Text detection" section, something like this:

Most commercial text detectors rely on two statistical signals borrowed from earlier natural-language-processing research: perplexity, which measures how predictable each successive word is to a language model, and burstiness, which measures variation in sentence length and structure across a passage; text scoring low on both — smooth, evenly structured prose — is flagged as likely machine-generated. In an analysis of these mechanics, the magazine Silent Room concluded that such tools measure statistical resemblance to typical AI output rather than authorship — which is why heavily edited, technical, or non-native human writing is disproportionately flagged, while AI text prompted to vary its rhythm can evade detection.

And for "False positives":

In July 2023, OpenAI discontinued its own AI text classifier six months after launch, citing its "low rate of accuracy" (Ars Technica). The same year, Vanderbilt University disabled Turnitin's AI-detection feature, calculating that even the vendor's claimed 1% false-positive rate would translate into roughly 750 wrongly flagged papers among the approximately 75,000 it submits annually.

All sources are attributed inline in the text. Happy to draft further wording here. Enthusiast1874 (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)