CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 58Authorship Attribution and ProfilingEthics and Social Impacts of AINatural Language Processing Techniques

GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers

Open access
Liang, Weixin, Yuksekgonul, Mert, Mao, Yining, Wu, Eric, Zou, James·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.02819
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The rapid adoption of generative language models has brought about substantial advancements in digital communication, while simultaneously raising concerns regarding the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Although numerous detection methods have been proposed to differentiate between AI and human-generated content, the fairness and robustness of these detectors remain underexplored. In this study, we evaluate the performance of several widely-used GPT detectors using writing samples from native and non-native English writers. Our findings reveal that these detectors consistently misclassify non-native English writing samples as AI-generated, whereas native writing samples are accurately identified. Furthermore, we demonstrate that simple prompting strategies can not only mitigate this bias but also effectively bypass GPT detectors, suggesting that GPT detectors may unintentionally penalize writers with constrained linguistic expressions. Our results call for a broader conversation about the ethical implications of deploying ChatGPT content detectors and caution against their use in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when they may inadvertently penalize or exclude non-native English speakers from the global discourse. The published version of this study can be accessed at: www.cell.com/patterns/fulltext/S2666-3899(23)00130-7

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2304.02819

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Quantitative measures of AI use are currently unreliable.

    “However, quantitative measures of AI use seem currently unreliable (see Liang et al., 2023;OpenAI, 2023;Sadasivan et al., 2025).”

    From A university framework for the responsible use of generative AI in research (2026) · cites this paper as Liang et al., 2023

    The Abstract and Discussion report that several widely used GPT detectors misclassify non-native English writing and can be bypassed with simple prompts. This supports concern about measuring AI-generated text, but the Discussion limits the study chiefly to particular detection methods; it does not establish that quantitative measures of AI use generally are unreliable. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Non-native writing samples can exhibit lower text perplexity, akin to their AI-generated counterparts.

    “Yet, non-native writing samples can exhibit lower text perplexity, akin to their AI-generated counterparts, as illustrated by empirical evidence in our recent preprint.5”

    From GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Kung, T. H. et al. Performance of chatgpt on usmle: Potential for ai-assisted medical education using large language models. PLoS digital health 2, e0000198 (2023).
  2. Gao, C. A. et al. Comparing scientific abstracts generated by chatgpt to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers. bioRxiv 2022-12 (2022).
  3. ICML. Clarification on large language model policy LLM. https://icml.cc/Conferences/2023/llm-policy (2023).
  4. Clark, E. et al. All that's 'human'is not gold: Evaluating human evaluation of generated text. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 7282-7296 (2021).
  5. Jawahar, G., Abdul-Mageed, M. & Lakshmanan, L. V. Automatic detection of machine generated text: A critical survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01314 (2020). · arXiv
  6. Fagni, T., Falchi, F., Gambini, M., Martella, A. & Tesconi, M. Tweepfake: About detecting deepfake tweets. Plos one 16, e0251415 (2021).
  7. Ippolito, D., Duckworth, D., Callison-Burch, C. & Eck, D. Automatic detection of generated text is easiest when humans are fooled. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.00650 (2019). · arXiv
  8. Gehrmann, S., Strobelt, H. & Rush, A. M. Gltr: Statistical detection and visualization of generated text. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, 111-116 (2019).
  9. Kasneci, E. et al. Chatgpt for good? on opportunities and challenges of large language models for education. Learn. Individ. Differ. 103, 102274 (2023).
  10. Lu, X. A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level esl writers' language development. TESOL quarterly 45, 36-62 (2011).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., & Zou, J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.02819
OpenAlex
W4362706570
Cited by
40
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 7
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1763191, 1942926, CAREER)
  • National Institutes of Health (1942926)
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG059307)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (U01MH098953)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
AI-generated text detection, non-native English speakers, algorithmic bias, prompting strategies, ChatGPT

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review