Enter Text
Sentence View
AI Content Detector: Check If Text Looks Human-Written or AI-Generated
Content quality and authenticity matter more than ever. Educators want writing that reflects a student’s understanding. Publishers and marketers want original articles that build trust with audiences and ad networks. Businesses, NGOs, and legal teams need reports that are credible and attributable. Yet modern AI systems can produce fluent, well-structured text in seconds. The challenge is not merely fluency—it’s verifying authenticity and understanding how a piece of writing came to be.
That’s where an AI content detector is useful. Think of it as an early-warning system: it doesn’t declare guilt or innocence; instead it flags signals that suggest the text may be machine-generated—or reassuringly human. Our detector gives you a clean interface, an easy verdict, sentence-level highlights, and a donut-style gauge that reads at a glance. Just paste your text (between 200 and 3,000 words) and click Analyze.
What Is an AI Content Detector?
An AI content detector estimates whether a piece of writing was produced by a human or generated by an AI. Unlike plagiarism scanners—whose job is matching text to external sources—detection focuses on how the text is written: its rhythm, vocabulary diversity, sentence uniformity, and other statistical traces. It’s a probability signal, not a court ruling, designed to be combined with context and human review.
Popular brands offer their own versions, but not all detectors work the same way. Some use proprietary neural models; others rely on pattern-based heuristics. Our approach here emphasizes privacy and accessibility: analysis runs in your browser session so you can test content instantly without setup or accounts.
How Detection Works (Plain-English Overview)
At a high level, detectors look at measurable features in writing. Some of the most informative include:
- Vocabulary variety (type–token ratio): Humans naturally vary word choice; repetitive vocabulary can indicate templated or machine-like patterns.
- Stopword density: Extremely regular use of small connective words can make text feel uniform and synthetic.
- Sentence-length burstiness: Human writing often alternates between short and long sentences. Consistent lengths can feel robotic.
- Punctuation and structure: Overly neat patterns or formulaic paragraphing can push estimates toward AI-likelihood.
Our tool combines these signals to produce a Human vs AI percentage and a clear verdict label—ranging from Very Likely Human to Very Likely AI. The Highlight mode then marks sentences by likelihood so you can see potential problem areas without re-reading the entire draft.
Use Cases: Why Detection Matters
For Students
Summarizing sources, outlining ideas, and drafting are skills learned with practice. Detection helps you self-check and keep your writing process transparent—especially when teachers ask for reflections or writing logs.
For Teachers
Detectors are screening tools, not grading machines. They help you spot sections that deserve a closer look, compare with prior writing samples, or ask students to elaborate on process and sources.
For Publishers & SEO Teams
Trust and usefulness drive engagement. Mixed signals can be fine—but overly generic or low-value AI text erodes loyalty. Use detection to triage submissions, then improve drafts with examples, original research, and authentic voice.
For Businesses & Compliance
Proposals, reports, and knowledge-base entries shouldn’t feel interchangeable. Detection helps teams keep a recognizable brand voice and apply internal standards consistently.
How To Use This AI Content Detector (Step by Step)
- Paste your text into the input box (200–3,000 words).
- Click Analyze. You’ll see a donut gauge with a Human percentage and a verdict label.
- Toggle Highlight sentences to see color-coding (green = more human-like, red = more AI-looking).
- Use Copy to grab your draft, or Download to save a .txt. Reset clears the page.
For long documents, analyze by sections (introduction, body, conclusion). If a section looks borderline, add detail, vary sentence rhythm, and integrate concrete examples that reflect your own knowledge or research.
Responsible Use & Limitations
No detector is perfect—nor should it be your only source of truth. False positives can happen (human text flagged as AI), and false negatives can happen (AI text that looks human). Treat the gauge as a signal, not a verdict. When stakes are high, corroborate with process evidence: drafts, notes, timelines, writing samples, and interviews.
- Short texts: Below 200 words, results are unreliable. Expand or analyze more context.
- Heavily edited AI: Edits can mask signals—that’s why human review matters.
- Formulaic genres: Policy memos or technical specs may look machine-like even when human-written. Use judgment.
Comparing Detectors: What You Should Know
Different tools emphasize different signals. Some use neural models trained on human vs AI corpora; others prefer lightweight heuristics for speed and privacy. That’s why two detectors sometimes disagree—especially on borderline texts that sit near a threshold. When in doubt, get a second opinion and review the text in context.
This detector prioritizes speed, privacy, and clarity. It gives you immediate feedback in the browser, a clean verdict label, and sentence-level highlights you can act on quickly. It’s ideal for triage and day-to-day editorial checks.
Improving Human-Like Signals (Without Gaming the System)
- Vary sentence lengths—mix punchy lines with longer, explanatory ones.
- Add specifics—data points, quotes, sources, names, concrete examples from your experience.
- Revise actively—trim filler, replace generic phrases, and keep your voice consistent with prior work.
- Use structure—headings and transitions that reflect your unique argument, not just template language.
The goal isn’t to “beat a detector.” It’s to produce content that’s useful, trustworthy, and aligned with your audience and objectives. If the gauge nudges you to add substance or clarity, it’s doing its job.
Future of AI Detection
Detection will keep evolving alongside generative models. Expect improvements in multilingual analysis, better robustness to paraphrasing, and richer provenance tools (like version histories and cryptographic signatures). The long-term answer to authenticity is a combination of transparency, process, and quality—detectors are one piece of that bigger picture.
Editorial Tips for Stronger Human Signals
Detectors read patterns, but audiences judge usefulness. When a draft feels generic, add details only you can provide: anecdotes from your own projects, numbers from real reports, names, places, and timelines. Concrete specifics lift credibility and naturally change the rhythm of your prose, which also nudges human-like signals upward.
Vary sentence length on purpose. Follow a short line with a longer explanatory one. Then cut the next sentence back down. Read the paragraph out loud; if you never need to breathe, your rhythm might be too uniform. Uniformity is efficient for machines, but readers enjoy contrast and momentum.
Replace vague transitions (“moreover,” “furthermore,” “in conclusion”) with purposeful connectors that explain why one idea leads to the next. Instead of “moreover,” try “because this cost rose faster than expected,” or “since user sign-ups slowed after the redesign.” Specific logic beats filler every time.
Workflow: From Draft to Publish Using the Detector
- Draft quickly: Get ideas down without worrying about polish. Use headings to map structure.
- Substance pass: Add original research, quotes, or data. Cite sources you actually checked.
- Voice pass: Read aloud and trim filler. Swap generic phrases for your own expressions.
- Detector check: Paste 200–3,000 words, click Analyze, scan the donut gauge and highlights.
- Revise highlights: Red sections often benefit from examples, specifics, or rhythm changes.
- Final QA: Verify names, figures, and dates; add internal links and a clear call-to-action.
Case Study: Turning a Generic Blog Post into a Useful Guide
Suppose you wrote a listicle on “remote teamwork.” The first draft repeats common tips you could find anywhere. After running the detector, several sentences appear red. You revise by adding metrics from your own weekly stand-ups, a screenshot of your sprint board, and a short story about a missed handoff that led to a simple rule change. Readers get something new to learn—and the writing gains an uneven, more human cadence.
Finally, you connect the piece to your audience’s next step: a checklist, a template, or a link to a deeper resource. Utility keeps visitors longer, which supports both trust and SEO.
Checklist: Publish with Confidence
- Does each section answer a specific reader question?
- Are there concrete examples, data points, or quotes?
- Do paragraphs vary in sentence length and structure?
- Have you trimmed stock phrases and added your voice?
- Are sources cited and internally consistent?
- Is there a clear takeaway or next action for the reader?
When Results Are Borderline
If the verdict is “Unclear,” analyze the draft by sections. Introductions often sound generic; conclusions can drift into clichés. Strengthen those parts with specifics and transitions that reflect your reasoning. If this is a classroom or editorial review, pair the detector score with evidence of process: outlines, notes, and earlier drafts.
What the Detector Can—and Can’t—Tell You
The donut gauge is a probability estimate, not proof of authorship. It’s most helpful as a triage tool: “which parts deserve more attention?” For policy, compliance, or grading, combine the estimate with context, prior samples, and discussion. Responsible use builds trust without chilling legitimate writing.
Practical Improvements that Move the Needle
Add a paragraph that explains failure or friction you encountered and what changed after you learned from it. Readers recognize lived experience. Insert numbers that matter: not five decimal places, but a single, memorable figure tied to an outcome. Swap a buzzword for a concrete description of a real action a reader can take today.
Bottom Line
Write for people first. Use the detector to spot flat or overly regular passages, revise with truth and detail, and publish with confidence. The result is content that earns attention and stands up to scrutiny over time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Below are the most common questions about using this detector.
What is an AI Content Detector?
An AI content detector is a tool that analyzes writing patterns and signals in text to estimate whether the content was likely produced by a human or generated by an AI system. It reports a probability or verdict such as Very Likely Human, Unclear, or Very Likely AI.
How does this AI content detector work?
This detector uses heuristic, client-side analysis. It looks at vocabulary variety, stopword density, punctuation usage, and sentence-length burstiness to produce an estimate of Human vs AI likelihood. No account, server upload, or external API is required.
Is AI detection the same as plagiarism detection?
No. Plagiarism scanners compare your text to other sources to find matches. AI detection looks for statistical writing signals that may indicate machine generation even when the text is original.
Why detect AI-generated content?
Detection helps students, teachers, publishers, and businesses check authenticity, uphold guidelines, and maintain trust. It’s useful for triage, moderation, and due diligence—but it should be paired with human judgment.
What are the minimum and maximum word limits?
To ensure reliable heuristics, the tool analyzes inputs between 200 and 3,000 words. Shorter or much longer texts reduce signal quality or can slow down processing on some devices.
Does the tool upload my text to a server?
No. The analysis is performed in your browser session. This improves privacy and makes quick testing easy.
Can any detector be 100% accurate?
No. Detectors can produce false positives or false negatives. Treat results as indicators, not proof. Always combine automated checks with contextual review.
What does the donut gauge percentage mean?
The percentage estimates how human-like the text appears based on heuristics such as vocabulary diversity and sentence-length variation. It’s a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no.
What do the verdict labels mean?
Verdicts range from Very Likely Human, Mostly Human, Unclear, Possibly AI, to Very Likely AI. They summarize the detector’s current estimate given the text you pasted.
What does Highlight mode do?
Highlight mode color-codes sentences by their likelihood: more AI-looking sentences are marked in red; more human-like sentences appear in green. This provides a sentence-level map of risk areas.
What texts are hardest to detect?
Very short texts, heavily edited AI outputs, lists, or formulaic corporate writing can confound detectors. Pre- and post-processing also reduces detectable signals.
How should I interpret an ‘Unclear’ result?
Unclear means the signals are mixed or borderline. Consider longer context, compare drafts, and check metadata or writing history if available.
Does detection affect SEO?
Detectors themselves don’t change SEO. However, using them to maintain content quality and originality can support better engagement and trust—factors that correlate with stronger SEO performance.
Can this tool detect paraphrased AI text?
Paraphrasing can mask signals, so no detector can guarantee a catch. The highlight view may still reveal sections with uniformity or low variation typical of AI.
Will punctuation and formatting influence results?
Yes. Overly regular punctuation, predictable sentence lengths, or highly uniform structures may nudge the estimate toward AI likelihood.
What about technical or scientific writing?
Technical writing often has formulaic patterns. The detector considers multiple features, but results should be reviewed alongside domain knowledge and context.
Does this tool support multiple languages?
It works best with standard, well-encoded text. Results may vary across languages depending on punctuation conventions and tokenization quality.
Can I use results for grading or compliance decisions?
Use results as one signal among many—rubrics, prior writing samples, revision history, and interviews. Avoid making high-stakes decisions on a single automated verdict.
How can I improve a text’s ‘human-likeness’?
Introduce varied sentence lengths, add concrete details, and revise with authentic voice. Break uniform rhythms and avoid overuse of generic phrases.
Why do different detectors disagree?
Detectors use different models and thresholds. A text near the boundary can receive different calls. When results conflict, broaden your evidence and rely on context.
How do I use the Copy, Download, and Reset buttons?
Copy quickly grabs your input to the clipboard. Download saves it as a .txt file. Reset clears the field, counters, and results so you can start fresh.
Do you store my results?
No. Everything happens in your browser. Close the page to clear your session.
Why do you require a minimum of 200 words?
Short texts don’t contain enough signals—like vocabulary diversity or rhythm—to make a meaningful estimate. 200+ words improves reliability.
What’s the best way to verify borderline cases?
Ask for drafts, notes, or sources. Compare to prior writing samples. Evaluate timeline and process. Use human review to confirm important decisions.
Does formatting (headings, bullets) matter?
The detector focuses on text signals. Headings and bullets are fine; very rigid patterns may slightly influence estimates.
Can I test very long documents?
For performance and reliability, the current limit is 3,000 words. For longer documents, test by sections or chapters and compare patterns.
Will editing an AI draft make it look human?
Thoughtful editing—adding personal examples, varying structure, and refining vocabulary—can increase human-like signals. Surface-level paraphrasing is less effective.
What does ‘burstiness’ mean here?
Burstiness refers to the natural variation in sentence lengths. Human writing often has a bouncy rhythm; uniform lengths may signal machine-like patterns.
Does the tool support dark mode or accessibility?
The interface uses clean contrast and semantic roles. You can style it via your theme’s CSS; ARIA labels are included for key regions and the gauge.
How should publishers use detection responsibly?
Use it for triage and quality review, not to condemn authors outright. Communicate policies clearly and provide an appeal process for disputes.
Can I rely on detection for ad approvals?
Detection can support your editorial process, but ad approvals depend on broader quality, originality, and policy compliance—beyond any single signal.
Do emojis or special characters affect results?
They can influence tokenization slightly, but long-form textual patterns carry more weight than isolated symbols.
Is there a cost to use this tool?
No. It’s free to use and runs locally in your browser session.
Can I export the results or report?
You can copy the text, download it as .txt, and capture the verdict and percentage. For formal reports, add your own notes and screenshots as needed.
What should I do if I get a false positive?
Provide process evidence—drafts, research notes, and revision timestamps—and request a human review. Automated scores should not be final judgment.
What happens to my data after I leave the page?
Your session ends when you close the page. No uploads or account storage are involved.
Can I integrate this detector with other tools?
There’s no external API in this version. You can place the shortcode on any WordPress page to make it available site-wide.
What content types does it work best on?
Essays, articles, reports, and long-form posts with standard punctuation and sentence structure provide the clearest signals for analysis.
Does it work offline?
Once your page loads, analysis runs in the browser. However, your theme and scripts still depend on your site being accessible to load initially.
Can I use the results in a classroom setting?
Yes—pair it with rubrics, draft comparisons, and open discussions. Use it to guide learning rather than punish.
Does it handle quotes and citations properly?
Quoted passages may look different from the author’s own writing. Consider excluding long quotes or footnotes when analyzing authorship.
What if my text mixes multiple author voices?
Mixed voices can produce mixed signals. Analyze sections separately to see how the estimate changes across parts.