After 10 hours of meetings and 7 iterations, researcher argues 90% AI-detector score is misleading
kfountou · x · 2026-09-26
A researcher describes co-writing a paper with AI and pushes back on AI detectors.
- Starting from an iteration-0 draft, the two collaborators held line-by-line review meetings across 7 iterations, totaling 10 hours, feeding meeting transcripts back to the AI to apply discussed fixes
- Both now approve of the text — it says exactly what they intended, needing only minor manual smoothing
- An AI detector flags it as 90% AI-generated, which the author calls misleading: yes, AI typed it, but the ideas and approval are thoroughly human
The takeaway: detectors measure who pressed the keys, not whose thinking the text represents — deep human discussion plus AI drafting is still human intellectual work.
More from AGI Musings
- As answers become abundant, knowing what's worth asking becomes the scarce skill — r0ck3t23 · 2026-09-26
- Gallup: 93% in China say AI will mostly help vs just 36% in the US — robleclerc · 2026-09-26
- Paper maps road to recursive self-improvement: software leads, robotics and healthcare lag — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-26
- Roadmap paper maps 5-level path to recursive self-improvement: full RSI not here yet — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-09-26
- Ex-OpenAI Policy Head Miles Brundage Questions White House Double Standard Toward AI Labs — Miles_Brundage · 2026-09-26
- ARC Prize once insisted plain deep learning couldn't crack ARC — then o3 happened — teortaxesTex · 2026-09-26