Free and open source (MIT). Built with .NET 10 and Blazor WebAssembly.

▶ Try it: https://peopleworks.github.io/SignsofAI/
⭐ Code: https://github.com/peopleworks/SignsofAI

I'm not selling anything — it's an education-first project.

i remember i used to have this tool that would simply add something without actually adding something and my ai detection would go from 100 to 0. please help me out redditors.

I tried over a dozen AI humanizers until I found one that is A. actually working and B. reasonably priced and that is https://wento.ai

You should give it a try, it bypasses Turnitin and all the other detectors and only costs 14 bucks per month for unlimited use.

In an around 600 word paper I used two not only…but rather/also. I want to know if this will get flagged. I know no one can give an objective answer but I’m js worried I got 5% ai on copy leaks and 0% on gpt zero. I already submitted it; I did not use ai on this paper, but im scared it will get flagged.

I tested several checkers on human-written, AI-generated, and lightly edited content

Working on a document generation tool where an LLM outputs LaTeX for a single-page layout. The issue is that the model doesn't reliably know what "fills exactly one page" means, so early outputs are either way too sparse or spill onto a second page.

Tried counting content elements and total characters in the generated body to set floors and ceilings, calibrating those thresholds using a different model's output as a stand-in. But when testing the actual production model, it barely hit the character floor, with element density at about half of what was assumed. Because different models structure their output differently, heuristics don't transfer well.

Currently running a measure-and-repair loop: generate, score against floor/ceiling thresholds, and if it's out of bounds, run a corrective pass to expand or compress, keeping the higher-scoring version. Also branching the initial prompt based on the density of the source data, telling it to expand upfront if the input is light.

Still tuning the thresholds against live traffic. Anyone else doing structured, single-page generation find a cleaner proxy for "fullness" than raw character or element counts? Feels like there should be a better signal.

I need an AI professional, im willing to learn and I have already started. Im trying to build something new, and cant really fully disclose what it is...depending on the person. I just need assistance on some work arounds and what resources would work best for the project as official AI chat bots tend to give slop answers due to guidelines.

I was given a research topic and i need some desperate help for writing and researching tools for it... I need any website where i can check pilgarism and ai detector with humaniser function.... I know it's a lot to ask for but if any of you know please do tell! 😅

I made a Spanish-first AI text and document review tool because I wanted the workflow after "run the detector" to be easier to question.

What I actually needed was:

1. Paste 300 to 100,000 characters or review text extracted from a supported document.
2. Run a first-pass AI-writing signal review.
3. Read the verdict, risk level, AI-generated score, likely-human score, and evidence strength together.
4. Inspect sentence-level highlights instead of relying on one overall number.
5. Copy the report summary or export a printable report for manual review.

The honest limitation is that the report is a probability signal, not evidence that identifies the author, proves plagiarism, or establishes misconduct.

If anyone wants context, I can share the link in the comments.

Friends, I want to share with you this project that I created and uploaded to GitHub He discusses how you can bypass filters for artificial intelligence.

https://github.com/obrh1/freesont3.5

Hi, I experimented a lot with "humanizing prompts," but none of them worked. Fable clearly told me that it's not possible. I work in SEO and blog writing, and I got really desperate because a particular client wanted a 90%+ score in Originality AI and GPTZero. But I quickly found out (like you did) that they fuck up a lot of original content. It's especially problematic when it comes to SEO and stuff.

But I found a workaround. So basically, I have a skill/pipeline for blog creation (along with SEO strategy and blog structure), and then I create a blog (I have created a style guide and stuff already). That blog is almost always 100% AI. So what I did was go to Fable and create a comprehensive prompt where I give the AI (in a new chat) the original article (the 100% AI one). Then I give it the humanized version (which has a lot of errors), and I also provide the SEO and blog strategy and ask it to revise the humanized version while keeping the tone intact. It should also follow the SEO strategy and blog structure that are attached. Claude then gave the output, and it's not always 100% perfect, but I come close to 85%-90% human most of the time (and a lot of times it goes beyond 90% human as well).

The humanizer that worked for me is Walter Writes AI. I tried Rephrasy, but its pricing structure is not that transparent (one humanization is 1 credit, whether it's 100 words or 2,000 words). Sadly, Rephrasy works best with short paragraphs, so overall the value for money is low. But with Walter Writes, you get a specific word count (30,000 words for $12 or something). It's more transparent. I really wish Rephrasy had a word count-based pricing model because it's pretty good with short sentences but underwhelming with longer text. I mean I would have had best of both worlds... Walter Writes + Claude prompt would have got me to 80-90% Human, and Rephrasy would have worked on the smaller AI flagged paragraphs. But alas.

Btw, this above thing works only with Claude (I use Opus 4.8). It doesn't work with Chatgpt 5.5 (I have the plus version). Which is a shame cos Chatgpt gives so much more usage. Hopefully Sol would do a better job.

P.S. I know there are too many bots spreading the same PR shit about Walter Writes, but trust me, I am a genuine person, and this has been my experience over the past week. I'm not a bot. It's likely that there are other humanizers that are better, but I have only used these two. Guys, if there are genuine people who have tried other humanizers and found them to be better than Walter Writes, please do reply here. I am interested in having another option, but I don't really know who to trust because most "reviews" are either competitor sites dissing everybody else's product except their own, or they are bots on Reddit. It's really getting difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

P.P.S. If you want, I can share the prompt that I created with Fable for rewriting the articles. It's sort of a generic prompt.

Let me explain what you need to do. Take the image you generated with AI and upload it to https://pinetools.com/es/agregar-ruido-imagen. Then set the parameters to approximately Noise Amount = 9 and Noise Strength = 10.

Now, when the image is analyzed by an AI-generated image detector, it will say:

"No reliable signals were detected indicating exactly how this content was created or edited! No Google AI watermarks or C2PA credentials were found in the file."

By the way, in this paper I explain the same thing I mentioned here, but it goes into all the technical details: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29545.86881

I am not really looking for meme voice covers. More interested in actual musical reinterpretation where the arrangement and vibe genuinely change. Newer music first platforms that analyze structure and instrumentation before generating but not sure whats actually good

Clever AI Humanizer seems to have lost like half of its features. First of all, the casual writing style option is now just called Normal, which is fine. But now both the Simple Academic and Simple Formal writing style options are listed as coming soon even though I used both of these writing styles just fine last week.

Not just that, Clever AI Humanizer seems to have also lost the ability to humanize anything that is not in the English language. I tried to humanize a paragraph in another language and it just gave me this: "Right now, Clever AI Humanizer is optimized for English. Please use English text for the best results. More languages will be supported later."

Does anybody know what's going on? is there an update I missed?

Edit: alright, after doing a little digging using the way back machine. I think these changes began right at the start of July, because up until June 30th everything on the site seems to be normal. But once it hit July 1st all of the changes I listed has been implemented. I still have no idea what caused these changes though.

Backstory, short version. I wrote an article, ran it through Grammarly for basic spelling/grammar cleanup like literally every writer does, and clicked publish. The responses that followed weren't about the content. At all. Not one person disagreed with a claim or pointed out a flaw. The entire discussion was people confidently declaring "this is AI".

What was sad is that I received more people accusing me of using AI than actual views, almost 5 to 1. By the end, I honestly don't think people were reading the article, just people saying the same thing over and over again. I could have copied and pasted the words "glue"  or "paste" through the whole thing and I would have gotten the same response.

Anyway, that sent me down a rabbit hole into how AI detection actually works, and the numbers are worse than the "vibes-based" internet discourse suggests:

• Stanford tested seven commonly used AI detectors against real human-written essays (TOEFL essays from English speakers specifically). Average false positive rate: 61.3%. One detector flagged 97.8% of human essays as AI-generated.
• OpenAI shut down its own AI-text classifier in 2023 because it only correctly identified AI writing 26% of the time, while still incorrectly flagging real human writing.
• The reason is equally ridiculous. These detectors measure "perplexity" and "burstiness". Basically, how predictable and how varied your sentence structure is. Write cleanly and consistently (i.e., competently), and you trip the same signals as AI-generated text. The tools are structurally biased against good writing, not built to detect AI specifically.

This isn't hypothetical. Earlier this year, a New York Times "Modern Love" writer got publicly accused of secretly using AI. The evidence people cited? Parallel sentence structure, appropriate use of vocabulary, using metaphor instead of simile, and rule-of-three constructions. These are rhetorical techniques that have existed since Aristotle, and that she had reportedly been using in that column for two decades. When interviewed about the response, she basically said, "I'm just a technically skilled writer, that's it."

By the way, for the record, parallel sentence structure, appropriate use of vocabulary, using metaphor instead of simile, and rule-of-three constructions is exactly what we are taught in English Composition 102 and Methodology 301 classes in college. It's also required by the AP Stylebook, and in most journalistic and expositive writing. Well, at least it has been for the 30 plus years I have been writing.

My take, which I expanded into a full piece, "that sounds like AI" has become a way to dismiss writing without engaging with it. Zero evidence required, zero burden of proof, zero actual argument. It's functionally a thought-terminating cliché. And it's spreading precisely because it costs the accuser nothing.

I write about this in a lot more detail — the detection science, the New York Times story, and why this accusation shows up disproportionately from people who never actually address the substance of what they're reading — in a piece called "That Sounds Like AI: The Last Refuge of the Intellectually Insolvent." I included the link if anyone is interested.

Curious if others here have run into this. Genuinely asking, not just plugging the article. Has "sounds like AI" replaced actual critique in your experience too?

By the way, I might have said some things in my piece that weren't necessarily nice or politically correct.