CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Authorship Attribution and ProfilingMisinformation and Its ImpactsDigital Media Forensic Detection

People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks are accurate and robust detectors of AI-generated text

Open access
Russell, Jenna, Karpinska, Marzena, Iyyer, Mohit·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2501.15654arXiv 2501.15654
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this paper, we study how well humans can detect text generated by commercial LLMs (GPT-4o, Claude, o1). We hire annotators to read 300 non-fiction English articles, label them as either human-written or AI-generated, and provide paragraph-length explanations for their decisions. Our experiments show that annotators who frequently use LLMs for writing tasks excel at detecting AI-generated text, even without any specialized training or feedback. In fact, the majority vote among five such "expert" annotators misclassifies only 1 of 300 articles, significantly outperforming most commercial and open-source detectors we evaluated even in the presence of evasion tactics like paraphrasing and humanization. Qualitative analysis of the experts' free-form explanations shows that while they rely heavily on specific lexical clues ('AI vocabulary'), they also pick up on more complex phenomena within the text (e.g., formality, originality, clarity) that are challenging to assess for automatic detectors. We release our annotated dataset and code to spur future research into both human and automated detection of AI-generated text.

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.2501.15654

Cites

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?

  • People who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks can accurately distinguish AI-generated text.

    “According to recent studies, people who frequently use ChatGPT for writing tasks can accurately distinguish AI-generated text (Russell et al., 2025), which implies that they are also able to foil MGT detectors.”

    From Human-LLM Coevolution: Evidence from Academic Writing (2025) · cites this paper as Russell et al., 2025

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Mike Allen. 2017. The SAGE encyclopedia of commu- nication research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc, 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks California 91320.
  2. Guangsheng Bao, Yanbin Zhao, Zhiyang Teng, Linyi Yang, and Yue Zhang. 2023. Fast-detectgpt: Effi- cient zero-shot detection of machine-generated text via conditional probability curvature. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
  3. Tom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel M. Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Christopher Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, Ilya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. 2020. Language Models are Few-Shot Learners. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2005.14165 [cs]. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Tuhin Chakrabarty, Philippe Laban, Divyansh Agar- wal, Smaranda Muresan, and Chien-Sheng Wu. 2024. Art or artifice? large language models and the false promise of creativity. In Proceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI '24, New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Machinery. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Yapei Chang, Kalpesh Krishna, Amir Houmansadr, John Frederick Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2024. Post- Mark: A robust blackbox watermark for large lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Confer- ence on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8969-8987, Miami, Florida, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  6. Elizabeth Clark, Tal August, Sofia Serrano, Nikita Haduong, Suchin Gururangan, and Noah A. Smith. 2021. 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), pages 7282-7296, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Jad Doughman, Osama Mohammed Afzal, Hawau Olamide Toyin, Shady Shehata, Preslav Nakov, and Zeerak Talat. 2025. Exploring the Limitations of Detecting Machine-Generated Text. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 4274-4281, Abu Dhabi, UAE. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  8. Liam Dugan, Alyssa Hwang, Filip Trhlík, Andrew Zhu, Josh Magnus Ludan, Hainiu Xu, Daphne Ip- polito, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2024. RAID: A shared benchmark for robust evaluation of machine- generated text detectors. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 12463- 12492, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
  9. Liam Dugan, Daphne Ippolito, Arun Kirubarajan, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2020. RoFT: A Tool for Eval- uating Human Detection of Machine-Generated Text. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pages 189-196, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  10. Liam Dugan, Daphne Ippolito, Arun Kirubarajan, Sherry Shi, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2022. Real or fake text?: Investigating human ability to detect boundaries between human-written and machine- generated text. In AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence.
  11. Bradley Emi and Max Spero. 2024. Technical Report on the Pangram AI-Generated Text Classifier. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2402.14873 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  12. Henrique Da Silva Gameiro, Andrei Kucharavy, and Ljiljana Dolamic. 2024. LLM Detectors Still Fall Short of Real World: Case of LLM-Generated Short News-Like Posts. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2409.03291 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Matt Gardner, Yoav Artzi, Victoria Basmov, Jonathan Berant, Ben Bogin, Sihao Chen, Pradeep Dasigi, Dheeru Dua, Yanai Elazar, Ananth Gottumukkala, Nitish Gupta, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Gabriel Ilharco, Daniel Khashabi, Kevin Lin, Jiangming Liu, Nel- son F. Liu, Phoebe Mulcaire, Qiang Ning, Sameer Singh, Noah A. Smith, Sanjay Subramanian, Reut Tsarfaty, Eric Wallace, Ally Zhang, and Ben Zhou. 2020. Evaluating models' local decision boundaries via contrast sets. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1307-1323, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  14. Sebastian Gehrmann, Hendrik Strobelt, and Alexander Rush. 2019. GLTR: Statistical Detection and Visual- ization of Generated Text. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations, pages 111-116, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Abhimanyu Hans, Avi Schwarzschild, Valeriia Cherepanova, Hamid Kazemi, Aniruddha Saha, Micah Goldblum, Jonas Geiping, and Tom Goldstein. 2024. Spotting LLMs with binoculars: Zero-shot detection of machine-generated text. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 235 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 17519-17537.
  16. PMLR.
  17. Xiaomeng Hu, Pin-Yu Chen, and Tsung-Yi Ho. 2023. RADAR: robust ai-text detection via adversarial learning. In Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 -16, 2023.
  18. Daphne Ippolito, Daniel Duckworth, Chris Callison- Burch, and Douglas Eck. 2020. Automatic detec- tion of generated text is easiest when humans are fooled. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1808-1822, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Jiazhou Ji, Ruizhe Li, Shujun Li, Jie Guo, Weidong Qiu, Zheng Huang, Chiyu Chen, Xiaoyu Jiang, and Xinru Lu. 2024. Detecting Machine-Generated Texts: Not Just "AI vs Humans" and Explainability is Compli- cated. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2406.18259 [cs. · arXiv
  20. Marzena Karpinska, Nader Akoury, and Mohit Iyyer. 2021. The perils of using Mechanical Turk to evalu- ate open-ended text generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 1265-1285, Online and Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Marzena Karpinska, Nishant Raj, Katherine Thai, Yix- iao Song, Ankita Gupta, and Mohit Iyyer. 2022. DEMETR: Diagnosing evaluation metrics for trans- lation. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9540-9561, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Marzena Karpinska, Katherine Thai, Kyle Lo, Tanya Goyal, and Mohit Iyyer. 2024. One thousand and one pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 17048-17085, Miami, Florida, USA. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  23. John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping, Yuxin Wen, Jonathan Katz, Ian Miers, and Tom Goldstein. 2023. A watermark for large language models. In Proceed- ings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 17061-17084.
  24. PMLR.
  25. Kalpesh Krishna, Yixiao Song, Marzena Karpinska, John Wieting, and Mohit Iyyer. 2023. Paraphras- ing evades detectors of ai-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense. In Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 27469- 27500.
  26. Yafu Li, Qintong Li, Leyang Cui, Wei Bi, Zhilin Wang, Longyue Wang, Linyi Yang, Shuming Shi, and Yue Zhang. 2024. MAGE: Machine-generated Text De- tection in the Wild. In Proceedings of the 62nd An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 36-53, Bangkok, Thailand. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  27. Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The mythos of model in- terpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue, 16(3):31-57. · DOI · Paper page
  28. Ning Lu, Shengcai Liu, Ruidan He, and Ke Tang. 2023. Large language models can be guided to evade ai- generated text detection. Trans. Mach. Learn. Res., 2024.
  29. Yongqiang Ma, Jiawei Liu, Fan Yi, Qikai Cheng, Yong Huang, Wei Lu, and Xiaozhong Liu. 2023. Ai vs. human -differentiation analysis of scientific content generation. Preprint, arXiv:2301.10416. · arXiv
  30. Elyas Masrour, Bradley Emi, and Max Spero. 2025. DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Text. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2501.03437 · DOI
  31. Eric Mitchell, Yoonho Lee, Alexander Khazatsky, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2023. Detectgpt: Zero-shot machine-generated text detec- tion using probability curvature. In International Conference on Machine Learning.
  32. OpenAI. 2024. OpenAI o1 System Card. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2412.16720 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Giovanni Puccetti, Anna Rogers, Chiara Alzetta, Felice Dell'Orletta, and Andrea Esuli. 2024. AI "News" Content Farms Are Easy to Make and Hard to Detect: A Case Study in Italian. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 15312- 15338. ArXiv:2406.12128 [cs. · DOI
  34. Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Aounon Kumar, Sriram Bala- subramanian, Wenxiao Wang, and Soheil Feizi. 2024. Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2303.11156 [cs. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Chantal Shaib, Yanai Elazar, Junyi Jessy Li, and By- ron C. Wallace. 2024. Detection and measurement of syntactic templates in generated text. In Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Process- ing.
  36. Zhouxing Shi, Yihan Wang, Fan Yin, Xiangning Chen, Kai-Wei Chang, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2023. Red team- ing language model detectors with language models. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:174-189.
  37. Irene Solaiman, Miles Brundage, Jack Clark, Amanda Askell, Ariel Herbert-Voss, Jeff Wu, Alec Radford, and Jasmine Wang. 2019. Release Strategies and the Social Impacts of Language Models. ArXiv.
  38. Vivek Kumar Verma, Eve Fleisig, Nicholas Tomlin, and Dan Klein. 2023. Ghostbuster: Detecting text ghost- written by large language models. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics.
  39. James Wang, Ran Li, Junfeng Yang, and Chengzhi Mao. 2024a. RAFT: Realistic Attacks to Fool Text Detec- tors. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2410.03658 [cs. · DOI
  40. Tianchun Wang, Yuanzhou Chen, Zichuan Liu, Zhan- wen Chen, Haifeng Chen, Xiang Zhang, and Wei Cheng. 2024b. Humanizing the Machine: Proxy At- tacks to Mislead LLM Detectors. ArXiv. Publisher: arXiv Version Number: 1. · DOI
  41. Yuxia Wang, Rui Xing, Jonibek Mansurov, Giovanni Puccetti, Zhuohan Xie, Minh Ngoc Ta, Jiahui Geng, Jinyan Su, Mervat Abassy, Saad El Dine Ahmed, Ka- reem Elozeiri, Nurkhan Laiyk, Maiya Goloburda, Tarek Mahmoud, Raj Vardhan Tomar, Alexander Aziz, Ryuto Koike, Masahiro Kaneko, Artem Shel- manov, Ekaterina Artemova, Vladislav Mikhailov, Akim Tsvigun, Alham Fikri Aji, Nizar Habash, Iryna Gurevych, and Preslav Nakov. 2025. Is human-like text liked by humans? multilingual hu- man detection and preference against ai. Preprint, arXiv:2502.11614. · arXiv
  42. Alex Warstadt, Alicia Parrish, Haokun Liu, Anhad Mo- hananey, Wei Peng, Sheng-Fu Wang, and Samuel R. Bowman. 2020. BLiMP: The benchmark of linguis- tic minimal pairs for English. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 8:377- 392. · DOI · Paper page
  43. Qihui Zhang, Chujie Gao, Dongping Chen, Yue Huang, Yixin Huang, Zhenyang Sun, Shilin Zhang, Weiye Li, Zhengyan Fu, Yao Wan, and Lichao Sun. 2024. Llm-as-a-coauthor: Can mixed human-written and machine-generated text be detected? In NAACL- HLT.
  44. Tianyang Zhong, Zhengliang Liu, Yi Pan, Yutong Zhang, Yifan Zhou, Shizhe Liang, Zihao Wu, Yan- jun Lyu, Peng Shu, Xiaowei Yu, Chao Cao, Hanqi Jiang, Hanxu Chen, Yiwei Li, Junhao Chen, Huawen Hu, Yihen Liu, Huaqin Zhao, Shaochen Xu, Haixing Dai, Lin Zhao, Ruidong Zhang, Wei Zhao, Zhenyuan Yang, Jingyuan Chen, Peilong Wang, Wei Ruan, Hui Wang, Huan Zhao, Jing Zhang, Yiming Ren, Shihuan Qin, Tong Chen, Jiaxi Li, Arif Hassan Zidan, Afrar Jahin, Minheng Chen, Sichen Xia, Jason Holmes, Yan Zhuang, Jiaqi Wang, Bochen Xu, Weiran Xia, Jichao Yu, Kaibo Tang, Yaxuan Yang, Bolun Sun, Tao Yang, Guoyu Lu, Xianqiao Wang, Lilong Chai, He Li, Jin Lu, Lichao Sun, Xin Zhang, Bao Ge, Xintao Hu, Lian Zhang, Hua Zhou, Lu Zhang, Shu Zhang, Ninghao Liu, Bei Jiang, Linglong Kong, Zhen Xi- ang, Yudan Ren, Jun Liu, Xi Jiang, Yu Bao, Wei Zhang, Xiang Li, Gang Li, Wei Liu, Dinggang Shen, Andrea Sikora, Xiaoming Zhai, Dajiang Zhu, and Tianming Liu. 2024. Evaluation of OpenAI o1: Op- portunities and Challenges of AGI. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2409.18486 · DOI
  45. Tiffany Zhu, Kexun Zhang, and William Yang Wang. 2024. Embracing AI in Education: Understanding the Surge in Large Language Model Use by Sec- ondary Students. arXiv preprint. ArXiv:2411.18708 [cs] version: 1. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Russell, J., Karpinska, M., & Iyyer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
ORCID
Iyyer, Mohit
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
5342-5373
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2501.15654
arXiv
2501.15654
OpenAlex
W4412945712
Cited by
19
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 5
FWCI
18.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (public-domain)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2202506, 2312949)
  • Open Philanthropy Project
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
Keywords
ChatGPT, AI-generated text detection, large language models, text generation, detection accuracy, robustness

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