Edit: this tool is as reliable as a magic 8-ball
It can be used for some decision (i.e. not critical ones), but it should NOT be used to accused someone of academic misconduct unless the tool meets a very robust quality standard.
> this tool is as reliable as a magic 8-ball
Citation needed
Meanwhile, the leading commercial tools for plagiarism detection often flag properly cited/annotated quotes from sources in your text as plagiarism.
The whole silly concept of an "AI detector" is a subset of an even sillier one: the notion that human creative output is somehow unique and inimitable.
The AI detection tool fails both as it has a low accuracy and could ruin someones reputation and livelihood. If a tool like this helped you pick out what color socks you're wearing, then it's just as good as asking a magic 8-ball if you should wear the green socks.
When a human is miscategorized as a bot, they could find themselves in front of academic fraud boards, skipped over by recruiters, placed in the spam folder, etc.
If you are asking, is this LLM text Human generated, and it says Human (yes), then it is false positive.
If you are asking is this LLM generated text LLM generated, and is says and it says Human (no), then it is a false negative.
So I think the only thing a mythical detector could determine would be LLM, or non-LLM, and let us take it from there. But detectors are bunk; I've had first-hand experience with that.
