Common signs of AI writing
- Stock phrases like "in conclusion," "it is important to note," or "furthermore."
- Sentences that are all roughly the same length, with little rhythm variation.
- No contractions — "it is" instead of "it's," "cannot" instead of "can't."
- Repeated sentence openers or list structures across paragraphs.
- Overly balanced, symmetrical phrasing with no personal voice or opinion.
Related Tools
About the AI Text Detector & Humanizer
AI writing is everywhere — drafts, essays, product copy, emails — and so is the need to understand what you are reading. Teachers marking submissions, editors reviewing freelance work, and businesses screening mass applications all ask the same question: was this written by a person or generated by a model? This tool analyses text with Google’s Gemini AI and returns a structured verdict: an AI-likelihood percentage, the specific patterns that triggered it, and — uniquely — a humanised rewrite.
The detection examines signals that separate machine prose from human prose: uniform sentence rhythm, over-polished transitions, low lexical variance, stock phrasing ("in today’s fast-paced world"), and the absence of personal texture. The humanizer then rewrites flagged text in a natural register — varied sentence lengths, idiomatic touches, concrete wording — producing a version that reads like a person wrote it.
Honest limits, stated plainly: no detector is proof. Scores are estimates, strong human writers can flag high, and edited AI text often passes. Use results as one input in a human judgement — never as sole evidence for an accusation.
How to use the AI Text Detector & Humanizer
- 1 Paste the text you want analysed (a paragraph or page works best; very short samples are unreliable).
- 2 Press Analyse — the AI evaluates structure, rhythm, and phrasing.
- 3 Review the likelihood score with the specific reasons listed beneath it.
- 4 If the text flags high, view the humanised rewrite and copy the version you prefer.
Key features
Percentage verdict
A clear AI-likelihood score rather than a vague "possibly AI" label.
Reasoned analysis
Specific patterns named — rhythm, phrasing, variance — not just a number.
Humanizer built in
One click rewrites flagged text in a natural, human-sounding register.
Rate-limited API
Throttled requests protect analysis quality for everyone.
Who uses the AI Text Detector & Humanizer?
- Educators screening submissions as one signal before a conversation with the student.
- Editors assessing freelance drafts before publication.
- Recruiters triaging AI-spam applications to find genuine candidates.
- Writers checking their own drafts for AI-ish rhythm before publishing.
- Businesses keeping marketing copy sounding like the brand, not a model.
Tips and best practices
- Longer samples analyse better — a single sentence cannot carry statistical meaning; use 100+ words where possible.
- Treat scores directionally: 85% AI is a strong signal; 40% is noise. Do not act on middling numbers.
- The humanizer works best on non-fiction prose; creative writing with intentional style may need manual rework.
- For high-stakes decisions (academic misconduct), pair tool output with version history, writing samples, and discussion.
- Public AI detectors, including this, have error rates in both directions — that is the state of the art, everywhere.
Frequently asked questions
Strong on clearly machine-generated prose, imperfect near the middle — strongly human text rarely flags, but edited AI can pass, and some human styles flag high. Use as one signal, never a verdict.
The model’s estimate of how much the text resembles AI generation patterns. Higher means stronger resemblance — it is a likelihood, not a certainty.
Sentence rhythm, transitions, and word choice — the uniform, over-polished patterns detectors key on are replaced with natural variation while preserving meaning.
Analysis is processed per request through the API and not retained by this site; the text exists only in your session and the request itself.
No. No AI detector is courtroom-grade. Use it to inform a conversation, combined with other evidence — that is the responsible standard.