Latest news with #GPTZero
Time Business News
5 days ago
- Science
- Time Business News
Detector de IA Understanding the Technology Behind Identifying AI-Generated Content
To address these challenges, Detector de IA has been developed—specialized tools designed to determine if content was created by a human or generated by artificial intelligence. This article explores how AI detectors work, their applications, limitations, and the future of this important technology. An Detector de IA is a tool or algorithm developed to examine digital content and assess whether it was produced by a human or generated by an artificial intelligence system. These detectors are capable of analyzing text, images, audio, and video to detect patterns commonly associated with AI-generated content. AI detectors are being widely adopted across multiple sectors such as education, journalism, academic research, and social media content moderation. As AI-generated content continues to grow in both volume and complexity, the need for accurate and dependable detection methods has increased dramatically. Detector de IA rely on a combination of computational techniques and linguistic analysis to assess the likelihood that content was generated by an AI. Here are some of the most common methods: Perplexity measures the predictability of a text, indicating how likely a sequence of words is based on language patterns. AI-generated text tends to be more predictable and coherent than human writing, often lacking the spontaneity and errors of natural human language. Lower perplexity scores typically suggest a greater chance that the text was generated by an AI system. AI writing often exhibits specific stylistic patterns, such as overly formal language, repetitive phrasing, or perfectly structured grammar. Detectors look for these patterns to determine authorship. Certain detectors rely on supervised learning models that have been trained on extensive datasets containing both human- and AI-generated content. These models learn the subtle distinctions between the two and can assign a probability score indicating whether a given text was AI-generated. Newer methods include embedding hidden watermarks into AI-generated content, which can be identified by compatible detection tools. In some cases, detectors also analyze file metadata for clues about how and when content was created. Several platforms and tools have emerged to help users detect AI-generated content. Some of the most well-known include: GPTZero : One of the first widely adopted detectors designed to identify content generated by large language models like ChatGPT. : One of the first widely adopted detectors designed to identify content generated by large language models like ChatGPT. : Popular in academic and publishing settings, this tool offers plagiarism and AI content detection in a single platform. : Popular in academic and publishing settings, this tool offers plagiarism and AI content detection in a single platform. Turnitin AI Detection : A go-to tool for universities, integrated into the Turnitin plagiarism-checking suite. : A go-to tool for universities, integrated into the Turnitin plagiarism-checking suite. Copyleaks AI Content Detector : A versatile tool offering real-time detection with detailed reports and language support. : A versatile tool offering real-time detection with detailed reports and language support. OpenAI Text Classifier (now retired): Initially released to help users differentiate between human and AI text, it laid the groundwork for many newer detectors. With students increasingly using AI tools to generate essays and homework, educational institutions have turned to AI detectors to uphold academic integrity. Teachers and universities use these tools to ensure that assignments are genuinely authored by students. AI-written news articles, blog posts, and press releases have become common. AI detectors help journalists verify the originality of their sources and combat misinformation. Writers, publishers, and editors use AI detector to ensure authenticity in published work and to maintain brand voice consistency, especially when hiring freelancers or accepting guest submissions. Social media platforms use AI detection tools to identify and block bot-generated content or fake news. This improves content quality and user trust. Organizations are increasingly required to meet ethical and legal responsibilities by disclosing their use of AI. Detection tools help verify content origin for regulatory compliance and transparency. Despite their usefulness, AI detectors are far from perfect. They face several notable challenges: Detectors may mistakenly classify human-written content as AI-generated (false positive) or vice versa (false negative). This can have serious consequences, especially in academic or legal settings. As generative models like GPT-4, Claude, and Gemini become more advanced, their output increasingly resembles human language, making detection significantly harder. The majority of AI detectors are predominantly trained on English-language content. Their accuracy drops when analyzing content in other languages or domain-specific writing (e.g., legal or medical documents). Users can easily modify AI-generated content to bypass detection. A few manual edits or paraphrasing can make it undetectable to most tools. As AI detectors become more prevalent, ethical questions arise: Should users always be informed that their content is being scanned for AI authorship? Can a student or professional be penalized solely based on a probabilistic tool? How do we protect freedom of expression while maintaining authenticity? There is an ongoing debate about striking the right balance between technological regulation and user rights. Looking forward, AI detectors are expected to become more accurate, nuanced, and embedded into digital ecosystems. Some future developments may include: Built-in AI Signatures : AI models could embed invisible watermarks into all generated content, making detection straightforward. : AI models could embed invisible watermarks into all generated content, making detection straightforward. AI-vs-AI Competition : Detection tools may be powered by rival AI systems trained to expose the weaknesses of generative models. : Detection tools may be powered by rival AI systems trained to expose the weaknesses of generative models. Legislation and Standards : Governments and industry bodies may enforce standards requiring disclosure when AI is used, supported by detection audits. : Governments and industry bodies may enforce standards requiring disclosure when AI is used, supported by detection audits. Multi-modal Detection: Future detectors will analyze not only text but also images, videos, and audio to determine AI involvement across all content types. Detector de IA have become vital tools in a world where artificial intelligence can mimic human creativity with striking accuracy. They help preserve trust in digital content by verifying authenticity across education, journalism, and communication. However, as generative AI evolves, so too must detection tools—becoming smarter, fairer, and more transparent. In the coming years, the effectiveness of AI detectors will play a critical role in how societies manage the integration of AI technologies. Ensuring that content remains trustworthy in the age of artificial intelligence will depend not only on technological advancement but also on ethical application and regulatory oversight. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Yahoo
Fact Check: Don't fall for photos of Pope Leo XIV tumbling down stairs
Claim: In June 2025, a series of photographs authentically showed Pope Leo XIV falling down stairs. Rating: In 2025, a set of photographs allegedly depicting Pope Leo XIV falling down stairs circulated online. For example, one Facebook post (archived) by the account Daily Bible Verse shared three images, one of the pope waving to the crowd as he walked down stairs and two of him falling down stairs: The same photos appeared several times on Facebook (archived) and Threads (archived). However, the story was fictional. A Google search (archived) and a Google News search (archived) revealed no reputable news outlet reported this incident. Of the three images, one showing the pope waving was most likely authentic. The photo started circulating online on May 21, 2025, after the pope's first weekly general audience. Similar photos from that event appeared on the same day in the same setting from reputable news agencies such as Getty Images, NurPhoto and The Associated Press, and artificial intelligence detectors indicated it was not AI-generated. But there were visual clues that the two smaller images showing the pope falling were unlikely to be real. For example, Leo's face in them was blurry and elongated. His position as he fell also appeared to change from image to image — falling backward in the first image and then falling forward in the second — in a way that seemed physically implausible. Snopes ran the images through two different artificial intelligence image detectors, Decopy and Undetectable, both of which determined the images of the pope falling were AI-generated. The pinned comment on the Daily Bible Verse post linked to a website with an article that appeared to have little to do with the photographs. It read: According to multiple eyewitnesses, a piece of ceremonial technology—possibly a small microphone transmitter or liturgical device—detached unexpectedly from Pope Leo's vestment and fell near the altar. The moment was brief, almost imperceptible to many in the crowd, but cameras caught it. Within minutes, social media platforms exploded with theories, commentary, and metaphor-laden interpretations. Snopes ran the text of the article through two AI text detectors, Quillbot and GPTZero, both of which concluded it was AI-generated — a clue that the website in question was a junk content farm filled with so-called "AI slop." Snopes often fact-checks fake and altered images of well-known people; see, for example, our story on an edited image of tech billionaire Elon Musk's chest and a fact check debunking an image of United Healthcare CEO shooting suspect Luigi Mangione wearing a "Sailor Moon" costume. Ibrahim, Nur. "Fake Photo Shows Luigi Mangione in 'Sailor Moon' Costume." Snopes, 16 Dec. 2024, Accessed 10 June 2025. Liles, Jordan. "Photo of Elon Musk Altered to Increase His Chest and Stomach Size." Snopes, 11 Nov. 2024, Accessed 10 June 2025.
Tom's Guide
07-06-2025
- Tom's Guide
I tested 5 apps that detect AI writing — here's the one that beat them all, and the one that missed the mark
On the one hand, AI tools like ChatGPT, Google Gemini, and DeepSeek are incredibly useful when it comes to writing emails, summarizing content, and detecting tone in our writing. It's hard to imagine life before late 2022, when most of us discovered that ChatGPT can do some of the legwork when it comes to writing content. Need a cover letter? You can write one in five seconds, complete with a greeting and a summary of your work the other hand, AI slop is all around us. Prose written by a chatbot has a few telltale signs, such as a lack of originality and vague details. In this war of words, though, the AI bots are improving. You can ask ChatGPT to rewrite content so that it sounds more original and can avoid detection by apps like GPTZero. The war rages on, a true cat and mouse don't really know who is winning the war. If you're a student, writing content for your job, or even composing an email for a family reunion this summer, detecting AI writing is far easier than you might think — which might give you pause. For example, most professors in college now know how to run an AI detection service on your assignments. One popular tool — called GPTZero — uses a probability index to detect whether AI was involved in a piece of all of the AI detection apps work the same, though. I found there was one superior tool and one that missed the mark. For my tests, I used a sample chapter from a book I'm writing — I loaded an entire chapter into the five AI detection apps below. I also had ChatGPT write a cover letter for a fictitious job. I asked the bot to use some flair and originality, and to try to avoid AI detection. Lastly, I asked ChatGPT to finish this article for me — essentially, a 50-50 split between me and AI (e.g., something I'd never actually do).Here's how each AI detection tool fared on the three tests, including the big winner. I've used GPTZero many times, in part because the free version lets you detect a small amount of text without signing up for a subscription. For this review, I used the full Premium version that costs $23.99 per month and can do basic and advanced scans. With the advanced scan, GPTZero splits a long section of text into pages and rates the AI probability for each section. GPTZero did flag quite a few paragraphs with a 1% AI probability and a few sentences with a 5% AI probability rating. Yet, overall, the service worked remarkably I tested the cover letter written by ChatGPT, GPTZero really shone the brightest of all the apps. The service reported that it was likely 100% AI-written. The only issue is that there were some false flags, even with that overall rating. Get instant access to breaking news, the hottest reviews, great deals and helpful tips. GPTZero labeled a few sentences as human-generated. When I had GPTZero scan my article that was 50% human and 50% AI, the service flagged it as 58% human — the most accurate of the AI detection apps. is a comprehensive tool that provides detailed detection results. The service costs $12.95 per month for the Pro plan with 2,000 credits. In the sample text from my book, Originality. AI quickly labeled my text with 100% confidence that it was all human-written — the only app that returned that correct result. That is reassuring, although the service did question a few sentences as AI-written even if it gave me an overall 100% confidence the ChatGPT cover letter test, reported that it was 91% human. That's because I asked ChatGPT to try and avoid the AI detection apps and write with flair, but a little troubling. In my test where I asked ChatGPT to finish this article, I was quite shocked. flagged the entire article as original with 100% confidence, even though only the first half was human. (When I asked ChatGPT to finish the article, it churned out some generic content even though I asked the bot to match the article style.) It seems was fooled by that trick even though it's likely a common practice, especially with students. Grammarly is designed primarily to help you write without errors and to avoid plagiarism, but it also includes a robust AI detector. I would say it is too robust. The interface for Grammarly is confusing since it flags plagiarism and AI writing at the same time. The app flagged the chapter of my book, saying '7% of your text matches external sources' which felt like a slap in the face. Come on! First, it isn't true, and second, that's discouraging. The app also said it did not detect common AI patterns in the writing, so that was a relief. Still, I didn't like the false flags. Grammarly is also expensive, costing $30 per month if you pay trick, asking ChatGPT to write a cover letter to avoid detection, proved quite effective — Grammarly said: 'Your document doesn't match anything in our references or contain common AI text patterns.' That was entirely incorrect, since the text was 100% AI-generated. The same result occurred when I fed the article that was 50% me and 50% AI — it said it was all human. Winston AI is another powerful and full-featured app, similar to in many respects. Scanning the sample chapter of my book, Winston AI gave me a 96% human score, which is fair. Unfortunately, like Grammarly, the service flagged some sections with only a 50% probability of human writing. In the middle section, Winston AI labeled two entire paragraphs as 100% AI written, even though they weren't. I tested the Winston AI Essential plan, which costs $18 per month but does not detect plagiarism; it's $12 per month if you pay annually. As for the cover letter, Winston AI was all over it. The service flagged the text as 100% AI written, although it suggested the second half of the letter might have been human-generated (suggesting a 48% probability as human). Fortunately, Winston AI also flagged my article correctly, saying there was a 46% chance of it being human-generated. The app flagged a middle section that was all AI-written, but missed the closing section (which was AI). Monica was my least favorite AI detection tool, but that's mostly because the service has multiple purposes — AI detection is just one feature. The app actually outsourced detection to Copyleaks. GPTZero, and ZeroGPT. For the book chapter, Monica flagged my test as 99% human but didn't provide any other guidance as far as feedback on specific detected the cover letter as 100% AI-written. That's not a surprise since GPTZero reported the same result, and Monica uses that same app. Monica had some serious problems detecting my article which was 50% human and 50% AI-generated. The service decided it was 100% human-generated and didn't flag the second half, which was AI-written.
Daily Tribune
16-05-2025
- Science
- Daily Tribune
Sparking creativity in young students
Primary school students are now being taught how to carry out real-world research projects, and their work is screened for AI and plagiarism. Meanwhile, universities are required to set aside at least three per cent of their net income for academic research, under a national push to bring research into every level of Bahrain's education system. Education Minister, His Excellency Dr. Mohamed bin Mubarak Juma, outlined the ministry's approach in a written reply to a question by Shura Council member Dr Anwar Al Sada. Changes The response lays out changes beginning in early schooling and continuing through to university and postgraduate levels. In schools, pupils are being introduced to research through subjects like environmental science and entrepreneurship. They are expected to come up with ideas, look into them and share what they have found, often as part of their yearly assessments. Classrooms are being connected to digital platforms and fitted with libraries and labs to help students carry out experiments and small-scale projects. Practical research Programmes such as the UNESCO Associated Schools Network and the GLOBE environmental scheme have been brought in to get students involved in practical research. A separate scheme for gifted students, called The Al Mobtakeroon (Innovators), helps them tackle real-world problems using science, design and presentation skills. Universities now require most students to complete a research paper or project before graduating. Many take part in research contests, and some have seen their work published in academic journals. Courses Research methods are built into the courses, and students are urged to share their work beyond the classroom. Teaching staff are also being asked to do more. Trainee teachers complete research tied to school problems as part of their diploma. Those already in post take part in workshops and short courses on how to carry out and teach research. Income Universities must spend part of their income, no less than three per cent, on developing research. That includes books, labs, journal access, and support for staff to publish or attend conferences. Research efforts are tracked. Universities must report data on staff, research funding, published papers, patents and work with outside bodies. Schools use simple scoring guides to mark student projects for structure, content and use of sources. A panel of judges from local universities looks at work submitted by gifted pupils in national contests and gives feedback. Concerns about the misuse of AI have led to tougher checks. The Ministry uses tools such as GPTZero and Plagiarism Detector to scan written work. Sources Students are taught how to cite sources, avoid copying and use material fairly. Workshops cover copyright, cyber safety and how to licence original work. Universities must have their own rules on fair research. Master's degree topics must be cleared by the Higher Education Council before work begins. National archive Finished theses are stored in a national archive to stop others copying or reusing them without permission. Dr Al Sada asked how the Education Ministry was supporting research in schools and universities, what it was doing to help teachers, how it kept standards in place and how it tracked progress. The reply sets out a system that stretches from early school to postgraduate study, combining training with closer checks and firm expectations.
Boston Globe
09-04-2025
- Boston Globe
Students are using AI to write scholarship essays. Does it work?
'They felt a little bit sterile,' said Geiger, the cofounder and CEO of a company called Scholarships360, an online platform used by more than 300,000 students last year to find and apply for scholarships. Related : Advertisement Curious, Scholarships360 staffers deployed AI-detection software called GPTZero. It checked almost 1,000 essays submitted for one scholarship and determined that about 42 percent of them had likely been composed with the help of generative AI. With college acceptances beginning to roll in for high school seniors, and juniors starting to brainstorm the essays they'll submit with their applications in the fall, Geiger is concerned. When students use AI to help write their essays, he said, they are wasting a valuable opportunity. 'The essay is one of the few opportunities in the admissions process for a student to communicate directly with a scholarship committee or with an admissions reader,' Geiger said. 'That provides a really powerful opportunity to share who you are as a person, and I don't think that an AI tool is able to do that.' Advertisement Madelyn Ronk, a 20-year-old student at Penn State Beaver, said she never considered using ChatGPT to write the personal statement required for her transfer application from community college last year. A self-described Goody Two-shoes, she didn't want to get in trouble. But there was another reason: She didn't want to turn in the same essay as anyone else. 'I want to be unique. I feel like when people use AI constantly, it just gives the same answer to every single person,' said Ronk, who wrote her essay about volunteering for charitable organizations in her hometown. 'I would like my answer to be me. So I don't use AI.' Geiger said students' fears about submitting a generic essay are valid — they're less likely to get scholarships that way. But that doesn't mean they have to avoid generative AI altogether. Some companies offer services to help students use AI to improve their work, rather than to cheat — such as getting help writing an outline, using proper grammar or making points effectively. Generative AI can proofread an essay, and can even tell a student whether their teacher is likely to flag it as AI-assisted. Related : Packback, for example, is an online platform whose AI software can chat with students and give feedback as they are writing. The bot might flag grammatical errors or the use of passive voice or whether students are digressing from their point. Craig Booth, the company's chief technology officer, said the software is designed to introduce students to ethical uses of AI. A Advertisement Not all scholarship providers or colleges have policies on exactly how AI can or cannot be used in prospective student essays. For example, Tools like GPTZero aren't reliable 100 percent of the time. The Markup, a news outlet focused on technology, reported on a study that found Because detection software isn't always accurate, Geiger said, Scholarships360 doesn't base scholarship decisions on whether essays were flagged as being generated by AI. But, he said, many of the students whose essays were flagged weren't awarded a given scholarship because 'if your writing is being mistaken for AI,' whether you used the technology or not, for a scholarship or admissions essay, 'it's probably going to be missing the mark.' Jonah O'Hara, who serves as chair of the admissions practices committee at the National Association of College Admissions Counselors, said that using AI isn't 'inherently evil,' but colleges and scholarship providers need to be transparent about their expectations and students need to disclose when they're using it and for what. Advertisement O'Hara, who is director of college counseling at Rocky Hill Country Day School in Rhode Island, said that he has always discouraged students from using a thesaurus in writing college application essays, or using any words that aren't normal for them. 'If you don't use 'hegemony' and 'parsimonious' in text messages with your friends, then why would you use it in an essay to college? That's not you,' O'Hara said. 'If you love the way polysyllabic words roll off your tongue, then, of course, if it's your voice, then use it.' Generative AI is, functionally, the latest evolution of the thesaurus, and O'Hara wonders whether it has 'put a shelf life on the college essay.' There was a time when some professors offered self-scheduled, unproctored take-home exams, O'Hara recalled. Students had to sign an honor statement promising that everything they submitted was their own work. But the onus was on the professors to write cheat-proof exams. O'Hara said if the college essay is going to survive, he thinks this is the direction administrators will have to go. 'If we get to a point where colleges cannot confidently determine [its] authenticity,' he said, 'then they may abandon it entirely.' This story about was produced by , a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the .
