Search

Abstract This study investigates the efficacy of six major Generative AI (GenAI) text detectors when confronted with machine-generated content modified to evade detection (n = 805). We compare these detectors to assess their reliability in identifying AI-generated text in educational settings, where they are increasingly used to address academic integrity concerns. Results show significant reductions in detector accuracy (17.4%) when faced with simple techniques to manipulate the AI generated content. The varying performances of GenAI tools and detectors indicate they cannot currently be recommended for determining academic integrity violations due to accuracy limitations and the potential for false accusation which undermines inclusive and fair assessment practices. However, these tools may support learning and academic integrity when used non-punitively. This study aims to guide educators and institutions in the critical implementation of AI text detectors in higher education, highlighting the importance of exploring alternatives to maintain inclusivity in the face of emerging technologies.

This study explores the capability of academic staff assisted by the Turnitin Artificial Intelligence (AI) detection tool to identify the use of AI-generated content in university assessments. 22 different experimental submissions were produced using Open AI's ChatGPT tool, with prompting techniques used to reduce the likelihood of AI detectors identifying AI-generated content. These submissions were marked by 15 academic staff members alongside genuine student submissions. Although the AI detection tool identified 91% of the experimental submissions as containing AI-generated content, only 54.8% of the content was identified as AI-generated, underscoring the challenges of detecting AI content when advanced prompting techniques are used. When academic staff members marked the experimental submissions, only 54.5% were reported to the academic misconduct process, emphasising the need for greater awareness of how the results of AI detectors may be interpreted. Similar performance in grades was obtained between student submissions and AI-generated content (AI mean grade: 52.3, Student mean grade: 54.4), showing the capabilities of AI tools in producing human-like responses in real-life assessment situations. Recommendations include adjusting the overall strategies for assessing university students in light of the availability of new Generative AI tools. This may include reducing the overall reliance on assessments where AI tools may be used to mimic human writing, or by using AI-inclusive assessments. Comprehensive training must be provided for both academic staff and students so that academic integrity may be preserved.