Paste any text and AI estimates how likely it was AI-generated, based on stylistic signals. This is an honest guide, not proof — AI detection is never certain.
No, and neither can any other detector. AI detection is inherently uncertain \u2014 it estimates likelihood from stylistic signals, never proves anything. The same text can read differently depending on topic, length and editing, so results shift. A confident-sounding percentage would be misleading; this tool gives you a level and the specific signals behind it instead. Treat every result as a starting point for your own judgment, the same way you would treat a tone check on a message \u2014 useful input, not a final verdict. 🎯
It looks for patterns statistically common in AI writing — uniform sentence length, formulaic transitions, over-polished phrasing, a missing personal voice — and weighs them against signals of human writing like uneven rhythm, specific detail and small imperfections. No single signal decides it; the tool combines them into an overall read. This is pattern-matching, not proof, which is why we explain which signals it noticed rather than just handing you a number. You stay in control of the interpretation. 🧠
No. A high likelihood is an estimate, not evidence. Very polished or formal human writing can trigger it, and lightly edited AI text can slip past \u2014 the same limitation every detector shares. That is why the result shows the signals behind it, so you can judge whether they actually fit. If you need certainty, this is the wrong kind of tool, just as a review analyzer flags suspicious patterns without ever proving intent. Read the reasoning, not just the label. ⚖️
Yes. Lightly edited AI text, or text from a strong model, often reads as human — and detection gets harder as models improve. That is not a flaw in one tool; it is the nature of the problem. Anyone promising to catch all AI writing with certainty is overselling. We are honest about the limits because a tool you can trust about its own uncertainty is more useful than one that pretends to be sure. 🤖
No, please don’t. Detectors produce false positives, and an accusation based on a single tool is both unfair and unreliable — students and writers have been wrongly flagged this way. Use it as one signal among many: a prompt to look closer, ask questions, or have a conversation, never as the basis for a decision about a person. Your own knowledge of the context matters more than any score. Fairness has to come first. 🙏
No. Your text is sent for analysis and is not stored on our servers, not attached to any account and not shared. Once the result is generated, nothing is kept. That matters because people check genuinely personal writing here \u2014 a cover letter, an essay, a message they are unsure about. You can read the blog for more on how the analysis works, but your text itself never sticks around. 🔒