People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text
Jenna Russell, Marzena Karpinska, Mohit Iyyer
Abstract
In this paper, we study how well humans can detect text generated by commercial LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude, o1). We hire annotators to read 300 non-fiction English articles, label them as either human-written or AI-generated, and provide paragraph-length explanations for their decisions. Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such"expert"annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. Qualitative analysis of the experts' free-form explanations shows that while they rely heavily on specific lexical clues ('AI vocabulary'), they also pick up on more complex phenomena within the text (e.g., formality, originality, clarity) that are challenging to assess for automatic detectors. We release our annotated dataset and code to spur future research into both human and automated detection of AI-generated text.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Cited by top-tier papers14
- Flipping the Dialogue: Training and Evaluating User Language ModelsTarek Naous, Philippe Laban, Wei Xu, Jennifer NevilleICLR 2026 · 56 citations
- EditLens: Quantifying the Extent of AI Editing in TextKatherine Thai, Bradley Emi, Elyas Masrour, Mohit IyyerICLR 2026 · 30 citations
- AI use in American newspapers is widespread, uneven, and rarely disclosedJenna Russell, Marzena Karpinska, Destiny Akinode, James Zhou et al.ACL 2026 · 9 citations
- Frankentext: Stitching random text fragments into long-form narrativesChau Minh Pham, Jenna Russell, Dzung Pham, Mohit IyyerACL 2026 · 7 citations
- Death of the Novel(ty): Beyond N-Gram Novelty as a Metric for Textual CreativityArkadiy Saakyan, Najoung Kim, Smaranda Muresan, Tuhin ChakrabartyICLR 2026 · 6 citations
Builds on20
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- DetectGPT: Zero-Shot Machine-Generated Text Detection using Probability CurvatureEric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning et al.ICML 2023 · 988 citations
- A Watermark for Large Language ModelsJohn Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz et al.ICML 2023 · 854 citations
- Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defenseKalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 657 citations
- RADAR: Robust AI-Text Detection via Adversarial LearningXiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, Tsung-Yi HoNeurIPS 2023 · 315 citations
Related papers
- Can AI writing be salvaged? Mitigating Idiosyncrasies and Improving Human-AI Alignment in the Writing Process through EditsTuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Chien-Sheng WuCHI 2025 · 14 citations
- Real or Fake Text?: Investigating Human Ability to Detect Boundaries between Human-Written and Machine-Generated TextLiam Dugan, Daphne Ippolito, Arun Kirubarajan, Sherry Shi et al.AAAI 2023 · 112 citations
- Is Human-Like Text Liked by Humans? Multilingual Human Detection and Preference Against AIYuxia Wang, Rui Xing, Jonibek Mansurov, Giovanni Puccetti et al.ACL 2026 · 3 citations
- How Large Language Models are Transforming Machine-Paraphrase PlagiarismJan Philip Wahle, Terry Ruas, Frederic Kirstein, Bela GippEMNLP 2022 · 26 citations
- All That's 'Human' Is Not Gold: Evaluating Human Evaluation of Generated TextElizabeth Clark, Tal August, Sofia Serrano, Nikita Haduong et al.ACL 2021
