- Sep 8, 2022
- 203
- 71
We’ve tested all of this on large-scale news sites before. We were using Jasper about three years ago, and it was completely useless. I don’t see a future for the content industry or these kinds of websites.
I did many (really, many) test with AI content. 90% failed
- Thread starter jyciap11
- Start date
I've sent two Claude generated articles to https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector, one was 100% AI, the other was 0%. ZeroGpt and QuillBot have them at around 20% AI. This is how useful these tools are. You will only get fooled by them, 100% unreliable.
Google knows how to detect AI content, and also knows if the AI content is helpful or not. I'm still testing, results are mixed.
I can't edit all articles manually, I won't pass them through a humanizer because it comes out as total shit. From API to production directly. All articles are factually accurate, so in the end engagement should be OK. I'm going to burn all my Claude, Openrouter, Fireworks credits anyway...
OpenAI is one of the worst "writers" I've tested, Claude is much, much better. Deepseek is also good but unreliable in the output, Gemini is OK (I use if for parts of the text which need 2-3 edits along the way, because it's very cheap).
Edit: forgot to mention that I'm not expecting to succeed with no human editing, but it's worth a try
Google knows how to detect AI content, and also knows if the AI content is helpful or not. I'm still testing, results are mixed.
I can't edit all articles manually, I won't pass them through a humanizer because it comes out as total shit. From API to production directly. All articles are factually accurate, so in the end engagement should be OK. I'm going to burn all my Claude, Openrouter, Fireworks credits anyway...
OpenAI is one of the worst "writers" I've tested, Claude is much, much better. Deepseek is also good but unreliable in the output, Gemini is OK (I use if for parts of the text which need 2-3 edits along the way, because it's very cheap).
Edit: forgot to mention that I'm not expecting to succeed with no human editing, but it's worth a try
Last edited:
Have you tried https://originality.ai/ai-checker?I've sent two Claude generated articles to https://copyleaks.com/ai-content-detector, one was 100% AI, the other was 0%. ZeroGpt and QuillBot have them at around 20% AI. This is how useful these tools are. You will only get fooled by them, 100% unreliable.
Google knows how to detect AI content, and also knows if the AI content is helpful or not. I'm still testing, results are mixed.
I can't edit all articles manually, I won't pass them through a humanizer because it comes out as total shit. From API to production directly. All articles are factually accurate, so in the end engagement should be OK. I'm going to burn all my Claude, Openrouter, Fireworks credits anyway...
OpenAI is one of the worst "writers" I've tested, Claude is much, much better. Deepseek is also good but unreliable in the output, Gemini is OK (I use if for parts of the text which need 2-3 edits along the way, because it's very cheap).
Edit: forgot to mention that I'm not expecting to succeed with no human editing, but it's worth a try
No.
But I know my texts are all 100% full AI, and any external tool besides what Google has won't show me what I need. I don't need to know if my text is AI generated or not (I know it is AI), I need to know if Google will accept it or not.
And for this matter, I need to access Google's own detection system. Which is impossible.
This is how stupid is to rely on AI detectors.
Blackhateagle
Newbie
- Aug 10, 2025
- 3
- 0
How can results vary that much? ZeroGPT tells me 0% AI Copyleaks says 100% for the same article xD