The most effective methods available at this time can reliably identify content created by AI, including ChatGPT-generated content.
Presently, the market is flooded with AI tools that can produce content, and new additions are being made every day. And while it’s okay to use AI tools for assistance—in fact, it might be preferable if you do so to remain ahead—using them to produce large amounts of subpar content will be detrimental to your success.
Thankfully, a new market for the identification of content produced using such technologies has also emerged as a result of the proliferation of AI content-creation tools. There are some useful tools you may use to find such stuff, however the technology is still very primitive.
What Makes an Artificial Content Detector Necessary?
The requirement for an AI content detector may differ depending on your line of work. If you publish low-quality AI information on your website and are a web publisher, for instance, search engines like Google may punish your website. Even if an AI is helping you to create content, the material needs to pass an AI detection test. In most circumstances, adding a human touch to AI-written content will help it pass the exam.
But if you’re a teacher, you might want to confirm that the essay your student submitted wasn’t totally authored by an AI.
Whatever your needs may be, we’ve put up a list of the top content detection technologies available.
Originality.AI is a useful tool for spotting the production of AI content. With capabilities like AI content identification and a plagiarism checker, it positions itself as a tool for serious content providers. They even claim that although the majority of available AI content detection algorithms concentrate on academia and display results in line with that, Originality. One of the few tools that supports online publishers is AI.
Although it is not free, it is one of the few programs that can accurately identify content created by ChatGPT, GPT-3, and GPT 3.5. More than 94% of the time.
It is simple to use. You just submit the content you wish to scan, and the software provides a score indicating how much of it is original and how much is artificial intelligence. The likelihood that an AI wrote it increases with the percentage of AI. A content rating of 90% human and 10% AI does not necessarily indicate that 90% of the content was created by humans and 10% by AI. It basically means that there is a 90% chance that the text was written by a human.
You must purchase credits in order to utilize the tool. You can scan 100 words for one credit, which costs one cent. In retrospect, the cost isn’t so high. For about $0.10, you can check a 1000-word blog post for plagiarism or AI detection.
Further features included include Team Management, Auto-Billing, and User-specific Scan History. Also, they soon hope to include capabilities for Whole Site Scan. Overall, it’s a terrific tool for companies that must routinely publish web content and prevent Google from penalizing them for utilizing low-quality AI content. You can utilize the Chrome extension Originality as well. AI in.
GPTZero is yet another excellent tool for identifying literature authored by AI that was created by Edward Tian, a student at Princeton University, mostly for teachers. Moreover, it can recognize information produced by ChatGPT, GPT-3, and GPT 3.5.
It also differs from every other choice on this list. It can not only determine whether an AI created the text, but it can also highlight specific sentences that it thinks were produced by an AI while hiding the sentences it thinks were written by a human.
You can upload a PDF, DOC, or TXT file to scan it, or you can paste the content (minimum 250 characters) directly into the box. The amount of text you can enter has no length restrictions. Also, the results are shown quite rapidly. But the outcomes are quite original. It can be perplexing how the tool evaluates text based on ambiguity and burstiness.
The perplexity of a document is a measurement of how random the text is, while its burstiness is a measurement of how perplexity varies.
According to Edward Tian, confusion is defined as the randomness of the text to a model or the degree to which a language model enjoys the text. Human-written text is more ad hoc, but language produced by AI is more consistent. So, it is more likely that a human created the document if the average perplexity score is higher.
Yet, confusion is not a sufficient indicator because texts get less random as they grow longer, even those produced by humans. As a result, it also employs burstiness as a measurement. It then displays, in more straightforward words, whether the content was most likely created by a human or an AI.
There aren’t many choices, like batch scanning, because it’s still in the early stages of development. And it appears like Edward Tian will put more of an emphasis on academic advancement in the future. Yet regardless of your needs, it’s a fantastic choice to take into account.
3. Demo of the HuggingFace GPT-2 Output Detector
I commend HuggingFace’s GPT-2 Output Detector all the more for being a straightforward tool without any frills. Although it says “GPT-2 Output” in its name, in my tests it worked with content produced by ChatGPT (which utilizes GPT 3.5). As compared to several other tools on this list, it performed better.
The user interface is quite basic. There is no word count; just paste the text into the given textbox. Moreover, there is no way to upload files. The tool begins to function as soon as you paste the text into the textbox. Below the text box, the result is displayed as a percentage of “genuine” and “fake,” where “real” obviously refers to human-generated data.
But, I would classify it more as a tool that can detect lower-quality AI-generated material admirably rather than something like GPTZero that can recognize AI-generated content at a finer level. It will identify a text produced entirely by an AI as being over 99% phony in my tests. Nevertheless, the percentages become less accurate when you enter text that has been altered by a human after being created by an AI. It determined that a text that was written 50% by a human and 50% by AI was 98% authentic.
Giant Language Model Test Room GLTR is unlike any other tool on this list, and at first glance, it might even seem a little difficult to use. Nonetheless, the adage “initial impressions can be misleading” perfectly describes GLTR. Even while it’s not as intuitive as the other tools, it’s still a valuable addition to your toolbox.
Understanding a text is simple. The findings are returned nearly immediately after you paste the text into the textbox and select analyze. Understanding the results, though, is where things get challenging. It doesn’t provide a clear percentage or analysis of whether the material was written by a human or an AI. The text is instead returned with each word underlined in one of the four colors—green, yellow, red, or violet.
Each word is evaluated for predictability based on the context to the left. The background of the word is green if it is one of the Top 10 predicted terms based on the word to its left, yellow if it is in the Top 100, red if it is in the Top 1000, and violet if it is not. A paragraph written by an AI would therefore primarily be green or yellow because it is more predictive than one written by a human. But, if the writing contains any red or violet, it was most likely written by a person.
For instance, an analysis of a paragraph produced by ChatGPT revealed that it was 100% green.
5. Writer’s AI Content Detector
The main purpose of Writer is to assist users in creating content for their businesses. But they’ve also given their website an AI Content Detection feature.
The application can scan documents up to 1500 characters long, and the findings are displayed instantly (most of the time; in my testing, it did refuse to work altogether for a little while but started working again after some time). The results are simply displayed as a proportion of text that is thought to have been produced by humans. Hence, the likelihood that an AI created the content increases as the percentage decreases. If you already use Writer, its Team customers can utilize the API to scan 500K words per month. Otherwise, you can only scan 1500 characters at once using the free tool.
It appears to be able to recognize content produced by ChatGPT and GPT 3.5, however the outcomes aren’t always accurate. Nonetheless, in my testing, it did designate the text produced by ChatGPT as suitably AI-generated two out of every four occasions. While the other 2 occasions, it gave it a little greater proportion (one time, 66%), indicating that there was a stronger likelihood that a human had written it.