To the degree that AIs are good at re-creating the style of the training data, you would expect there to be non-AI-generated text that would "look like" AI output.
They use, unwittingly, proxies for "AI" stylometry, with no specific or explicable features they can point to and say "Look! That is evidence that the text is written by AI", as if there were such features in the first place. The best they can do is validate the very lazy one-shot patterns that humans should be able to highlight in the first place.
Anything beyond that - even telling your AI to go use a "humanizer" skill in your prompt - creates a text distribution that is functionally indistinguishable from human generated writing. Throw in the fact that people who use AI will be influenced by the writing, often in positive, beneficial ways, and the software becomes a vicious, punitive tool. It's worse than waving a dowsing rod or pendulum, because the software comes with the implication of legitimacy and fairness.
I've tried it on large docs I've written well before the AI times, and that are nowhere available on the Internet (so it can't be a corpus issue) - and it is happily classifying me as 60%-80% AI.
Ai was trained on news and journal articles and this is the reason we see so many em-dashes as well. The side effect is that good writing is now classified as AI generated, which makes it bad writing. What a messed up world we live in
If teachers could teach, students might be able to read. If students could read, maybe more of them would learn how to write. If more of them learned to write, maybe it'd be inspirational to their peers and future generations.
Its unfair to dump all the blame on teachers. Yes, some teachers could make a difference (and some do), inspire students but that’s also a match made in haven, students need be receptive to learning something that is arduous at first. Id blame most of it on how technology is weaponized/ financialized to steal attention and fill it with junk.
