Affiliation:
1. Dept. of Psychiatry, King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Abstract
Background: Recently, Artificial intelligence (AI) has significantly influenced academic writing. We aimed to investigate the sensitivity of the free versions of popular AI-detection software programs in detecting AI-generated text. Methods: We searched for AI-content-detection software on Google and selected the first 10 free versions that allowed a minimum of 500 words for text analysis. Then, we gave ChatGPT 3.5 version a command to generate a scientific article on the “Role of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) in Treatment-resistant Depression” under 500 words. After generating the primary text, we rephrased it using three different software tools. We then used AI-detection software to analyse the original and paraphrase texts. Results: 10 AI-detector tools were tested on their ability to detect AI-generated text. The sensitivity ranged from 0% to 100%. 5 out of 10 tools detected AI-generated content with 100% accuracy. For paraphrased texts, Sapling and Undetectable AI detected all three software-generated contents with 100% accuracy. Meanwhile, Copyleaks, QuillBot, and Wordtune identified content generated by two software programs with 100% accuracy. Conclusion: The integration of AI technology in academic writing is becoming more prevalent. Nonetheless, relying solely on AI-generated content can diminish the author’s credibility, leading most academic journals to suggest limiting its use. AI-content-detection software programs have been developed to detect AI-generated or AI-assisted texts. Currently, some of the platforms are equally sensitive. However, future upgrades may enhance their ability to detect AI-generated text more accurately.
Reference9 articles.
1. Radford A, Narasimhan K, Salimans T, Improving language understanding by generative pre-training. 2018. Proceedings of 36th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2022). https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2022/file/ec795aeadae0b7d230fa35cbaf04c041-Paper-Conference.pdf (accessed 14February2024)
2. Motivational processes affecting learning.
3. Fishman T. “We know it when we see it” is not good enough: toward a standard definition of plagiarism that transcends theft, fraud, and copyright. 2009. 4th Asia Pacific Conference on Educational Integrity (4APCEI), 28–30 September 2009. University of Wollongong NSW Australia. https://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/09-4apcei/4apcei-Fishman.pdf (accessed on 14February2024)
4. Academic Plagiarism Detection
5. Intrinsic Plagiarism Detection Using Latent Semantic Indexing and Stylometry