[rhubarbtree]

It is certainly very obvious a lot of the time. I wonder if we revisited the automated slop detection problem we’d be more successful now… it feels like there are a lot more tells and models have become more idiosyncratic.

[weird-eye-issue]

Tons of companies do this already. It's not like this is a problem that nobody is constantly revisiting...

[rhubarbtree]

What’s one company that has revisited this recently and what’s their detection rate on what sample?

[weird-eye-issue]

Companies like Originality.ai are always updating their models and you could use a simple Google search to answer your questions.

[rhubarbtree]

You could also have had the courtesy to put that in your original post. But let’s not get meta.

I did a quick test and it detected an AI summary of a random topic, even after two prompts to disguise it. So as expected it may have become a lot easier to detect.

[weird-eye-issue]

There are literally hundreds of companies that are doing this. You could have the basic courtesy to do a Google search instead of asking.

[sebastiennight]

This is an Internet forum and one of the ways such places are valuable is that it enables you to ask questions to other humans and allows those other humans, if they'd like, to answer.

You will get better results asking questions like GP's than Googling because you're asking the specific person who made a claim to quote an example, so you can judge from the specific example they provide, rather than the Google results. The best answers are often technically interesting niche tools which don't have great SEO.

Case in point: the platform you recommended does not show up anywhere on my first page of Duck.com results.