AI detectors are a bad idea

Reddit r/ArtificialInteligence News

Summary

This article argues that AI detectors and watermarking are problematic because they dismiss human effort behind work and degrade AI-generated text quality.

No content available
Original Article
View Cached Full Text

Cached at: 08/18/26, 04:23 PM

# AI detectors are a bad idea Source: [https://blog.keyvan.net/p/ai-detectors-are-a-bad-idea](https://blog.keyvan.net/p/ai-detectors-are-a-bad-idea) [![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q2fP!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffa89b3bb-6505-4077-8007-b9b5089c1d93_1024x572.jpeg)](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!q2fP!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffa89b3bb-6505-4077-8007-b9b5089c1d93_1024x572.jpeg) A lot has been said recently about watermarking plain text, which allow AI labs to act as AI detectors\. And there are already non\-watermark ways of detecting AI output \(e\.g\. Pangram\)\. I think all of these are a bad idea\. The big issue is that none of these systems know how much effort went into a work before it passed through an AI model\. Yet they are seized on to dismiss people’s work as AI slop\. Lazy work and writing existed long before AI\. But now the work of someone who spends days, weeks, or months thinking about a problem and forming an argument around it, can be waved away and dismissed as AI slop because the final polished version was written up by AI\. Or consider someone whose first language isn’t English, who uses AI to have their written work translated\. Dismissed as slop too, thanks to these detectors\. Whether a piece of text came out of an AI model tells us nothing about the work behind it\. And companies like Pangram aren't incentivised to make this case loudly, because it would mean less demand for their detector\. AI watermarking, however, is even worse\. The labs don’t admit to it in plain language, but its essential mechanism is downgrading the words a model would naturally write and replacing them with less likely, i\.e\. worse, alternatives\. John Gruber calls this an[adulteration and perversion of writing](https://daringfireball.net/2026/08/anthropics_watermark_text_adulteration_in_claude_is_a_perversion_of_writing)in his recent piece\. If you’re curious how these work, I put together a simplified[interactive explainer](https://watermarking.mochi.is/)you can try\. A short video of it below\. #### Discussion about this post ### Ready for more?

Similar Articles

AI detectors are creating a new era of distrust

The Verge

This article examines the growing use of AI detectors in education and the resulting atmosphere of distrust, highlighting concerns about false positives and the subjective nature of AI-written text detection.

Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity

arXiv cs.LG

This paper evaluates commercial AI detectors in academic settings, finding high false-positive rates on AI-assisted human writing and near-total evasion via humanizers, concluding detector scores should not be standalone misconduct evidence.

Anti-AI fonts are useless and harmful

Hacker News Top

The article argues that anti-AI fonts, designed to prevent AI scraping, are ineffective and harmful due to accessibility issues, privacy concerns, and the inevitability of AI bypassing them, which could enable censorship.

This text was all written by AI. Can you prove it?

Reddit r/artificial

The article critiques the concept of AI-generated text and the effectiveness of watermarking for proving AI involvement, arguing that it may not capture human contribution and highlights ambiguity in defining AI slop.