“Upload your essay into Turnitin by 11:59pm on Thursday night?
You meant start the essay at 11:57 then submit it at 11:58, am I right?” — 
Gigachad ChatGPT student.

We begin our discussion by discussing the sweet smell of plagiarism.

It wafts in the air as educators run around like headless chickens, looking here, looking there as they flip through oddly good essays with panicked expressions.

“Was this AI-generated, Bobby?!” says a hapless teacher, staring at a piece of paper that seems curiously bereft of grammatical errors, suspecting that Bobby could never have created something of this caliber.

“No teacher, I just became smart!” Bobby cries, running off into the sunset because he is sad, he is going to become a member of an emo boyband, and he doesn’t want to admit that he generated his homework with ChatGPT.

generated by Midjourney, if that wasn’t obvious

This smell casts fear and trepidation over every single part of our education system, for it threatens to break it; after all, education is special and it is meant to be sacrosanct — after all, is it not the very same system that is designed to teach humans facts and knowledge and above all, to communicate and collaborate to solve the problems of our era with intelligence, initiative, and drive?

It’s unsurprising that the world of education has flipped out over ChatGPT, because artificial intelligence opens up the very real possibility that schools may be unable to detect it.

Fun and games, right? It’s just a bunch of kids cheating on assignments with artificial intelligence? It’s not going to affect the older generation?

As it turns out, no — that’s not the case. I’ll explain why later.

But before that, let’s talk a bit about the part of our education system that AI is threatening: Essay-writing.

If students simply choose to let their work be completed by artificial intelligence and forget all else, that just means that they’ve forgone the education that they’re supposed to have received, thereby crippling them by an act of personal choice, right…?

But each of us has been a student, and if we have children, our children either will be or have been students too; there is a deep emotional connection that stretches across the entire world when it comes to this.

Therefore, when Princeton University CS student Edward Tian swooped in to offer a solution,it’s not all that surprising that the world flipped.

Enter GPTZero.

Humans deserve the truth. A noble statement and a very bold one for a plagiarism detector, but something that’s a little deeper than most of us would probably imagine.

But consider this.

Not everyone who uses AI text is cheating in the sense of doing something that they are not supposed to and thereby violating rules, therefore the word ‘plagiarism detector’ doesn’t quite or always apply here.

This algorithm, as with other algorithms that attempt to detect AI-generated text, is not just a plagiarism detector that merely serves to catch students in petty acts of cheating —it is an AI detector.

An AI Detector At Work.

So how does it work?

GPTZero assigns a likelihood that a particular text is generated by AI by using two measures:

Perplexity, and Burstiness.

Essentially, in more human language than that which was presented on GPTZero’s website, GPTZero says that…

The less random the text (its ‘perplexity’), the more likely it was generated by an AI.

The less that randomness changes throughout time (its ‘burstiness’), the more likely that the text was generated by AI.

Anyway, GPTZero gives each text a score for perplexity and burstiness, and from there, outputs a probability that given sentences of a text were generated by AI, highlighting the relevant sentences, and easily displays the result to the user.

Alright, sounds great!

Does GPTZero deserve the hype, though?

…Does this actually work?

Let’s try it with this pleasant and AI-generated text that is exactly about the importance of hype (lol).

That’s 100% AI-generated and we know that as fact.

…Would we know if we didn’t see it in the ChatGPT terminal window, though?

…Okay, let’s not think about that.

Down the hatch…

…And boom.

As we can see, GPTZero, humanity’s champion, managed to identify that the text that we had generated was written by AI.

Hurrah!!!

Or…?

I proceeded to rewrite the essay with another AI software.

…After which GPTZero essentially declared:

So nope, GPTZero can’t detect rewritten texts that were generated with AI — which it should be able to if it truly is an *AI* detector in the best sense — and which in turn suggests that the way that it’s been operationalized has yet to allow it to be the bastion protecting humanity from the incursion of robots into our lives.

It’s not that GPTZero — or even OpenAI’s own AI Text Reviewer, amongst a whole panoply of different AI detectors – are bad or poorly operationalized, by any means. Rather, it’s that the operationalization is supremely difficult because the task is punishingly hard, and that we are unlikely to have a tool that can detect AI-generated text 100% unless we perform watermarking (MIT Technology Review) and we would have to use multiple algorithms to be able to detect text, or come up with alternate measures to do so.

An Arms Race between AI Large Language Models (LLMS) and AI Detectors — and why you should care (even if you’re not a student).

As I’ve mentioned, there is an arms race at hand between AI Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT, and AI detectors like GPTZero, the consequence of which is likely that the two will compete with one another and each will make progress in its own way, progressing the direction of both technologies forward.

Personally, I think that AI detectors are fighting a losing battle against LLMs for many reasons, but let me not put the cart before the horse — it is a battle to watch, not to predict the outcome of before it’s even begun.

Implications of this strange war:

But why should you care about any of this if you’re not a student? It’s not like you’re going to be looking at essays constantly, right?

Let’s take aside the fact that you’re reading a blog post right now, and let’s also move away purely from the plagiarized essay bit that we’ve been thinking about, as we gravitate towards thinking about how ChatGPT is a language model.

It’s a good bet that you use language everywhere in your life, business, and relationships with other people in order to communicate, coordinate, and everything else.

When we go around on the Internet, it’s not always immediately evident what was AI generated, what was generated by a human or, for that matter, what was inspired by an AI and later followed through by a human.

The whole reason we need something like a plagiarism detector is that we may not even be sure that a particular piece of language (which we most often experience in the form of text) is AI-generated with our own eyes and minds, to the point that we need to literally rely upon statistical patterns in order to evaluate some thing that we are looking at directly in front of us, thereby recruiting our brains as we evaluate the entirety of an output.

The problem is…

Language doesn’t just exist as text.

Language exists as text, yes, but also as speech. Moreover, speech and text are easily convertible to one another — and we know very well what ChatGPT is doing: Generating text.

We now know that there are Text To Speech (TTS) models that generate speech from text. They’re not necessarily all great, but that’s besides the point — it presages the translation from text into voice.

Think about it.

If the voices that are generated by AI become sufficiently realistic-sounding and their intonations (VALL-E, is that you?), how might you know that these voices aren’t real unless there are severe model safeguards that impede the models from functioning as they are supposed to?

Now combine that indistinguishable voice with sophisticated ChatGPT output that can evade any AI detector and in turn may, depending on the features that end up developing, evade your own capacity to tell whether you are even interacting with a human or not.

How would that play out in the metaverse?

How would that play out in the real world, over the phone?

How would you ever know whether anyone that you’re interacting with is real or not? Whether they are sentient?

The battle between AI and AI Detectors is not just a battle over the difference between an A grade and a C grade.

It’s a battle over a future where what’s at stake is identifying what even qualifies as human.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

No, ChatGPT is NOT making you stupid.

Sepupus, the internet has been abuzz of late because of a new MIT study called “Your Brain on ChatGPT”. All around on Reddit and the internet, people are starting to form wild conclusions, read patterns in the stars, decide unilaterally or with the agreement of some people out there and everywhere, that somehow now people are being made stupid and MIT researchers have said that it is so and therefore it must be true. I find it interesting and fascinating. Now, in what way is this related to economics if at all? Well, artificial intelligence is a very important part of our economy and it will continue to be important for the foreseeable future, as it shapes and reshapes the economy and how we treat human capital in ways that are intuitive and sometimes unintuitive, in ways more subtle and interesting than the standard narrative of robots replacing human beings may suggest. It’s interesting to think about it and how it’s going to affect the way that we can live and work in this world which is ever-changing and continually evolving. With that in mind, here’s my perspective. I do not generally think that ChatGPT is making us stupid. I read the MIT study earlier, and I broadly understand the way that it is constructed. You can have a look at it here. Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872 Basically, what they did was that they asked participants to write SAT-style essays across three sessions chosen from a range of choices in three different groups: 1. One purely using their brains 2. One using Google 3. One using ChatGPT Then, they had some participants come back for a fourth session where they swapped people from one group to another — 18 people did this in total. Now this is what ChatGPT says, in summarizing what happened: (AI generated – also, as a full disclosure, I do […]

Harvard Derangement Syndrome

We all know the difficulties that Harvard has been going through, and I thought that it would be fun to showcase an actual Harvard perspective, so I’m sharing this free article from the New York Times to all of you written by Steven Pinker, from my own subscription.  It is well worth reading, and I hope you will enjoy it if you choose to read it!  Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/23/opinion/harvard-university-trump-administration.html?rsrc=ss&unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.FQW2.LxEovGin6Ef6&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare Pinker is a disarming man. If you read his articles, they are quirky yet intellectually engaging. The man stuffs so many different facts into a single paragraph that it often makes me wonder how or whether he just has access to all of the ideas he does, articulating within a single hand wave expressions and fires of the most deeply interconnected set of neurons I may have ever witnessed on the planet.  Well, at least that’s what I feel having read Pinker for quite a number of years now – And not knowing that he was the Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard University Well, that’s just a lack of attention to detail on my part, but it’s an interesting reality Sometimes people may have done or know far more than you might even think, perceive, or understand And sometimes these surprises can be rather fascinating.  Read the essay and it will give you a picture of what I understand about elite universities in the US at this point – Not exactly woke madrasas or the very headquarters of the CCP as President Trump seems to suggest, but instead as something rather different, definitely vibrant albeit with its flaws, where strident opinions are often shared, becoming the very voice of a generation through nothing more than the saliency bias and social media even amid an admitted climate where certain ideas are put to rest not because they are bad ones, but instead because […]

Royal Society Interview

Very honored to have the chance to interview the very first Malaysian scientist to join Britain’s Royal Society soon. Looking forward to meeting you soon, Ms. Ravigadevi! What questions should I ask and what are you curious about? Let me know down in the comments!

PKR Deputy Presidency Election Results Analysis

Some of you who follow me on YouTube know that I’ve been conducting some coverage of the PKR Deputy President elections featuring former deputy President Rafizi Ramli, and incoming deputy President Nurul Izzah. Sometimes it’s good to take a moment to think about the events that have happened over the course of the past, to understand things a little deeper, so I decided to do an analysis of the election results, which I’m sure many Malaysians were following. It is my first time doing this, and I will share my thought process along the way. When I look at the vote totals and also who got how many votes, I realize that we have been told earlier that there were about 32,030 people who were eligible to vote. Yet, at the same time, when we added together the votes cast for Rafizi and also Nurul Izzah, the total was only 13,669. This was a 42.7% turnout. Now, this was significantly better compared to previous PKR elections during which the turnouts ranged from about 10–15%. But thinking about that made me realize something important: Firstly, Nurul Izzah only has about 30% of the vote and she does not have a strong mandate. Second of all, this system made it so that what we see seems to be a highly improbable result. Now, some of you may know that PKR recently moved over to a delegate system. The way that it works is that there are 220 divisions of PKR and they all select a certain number of delegates to end up making up the total pool of people who are eligible to vote. In other words, this is not a random sample – This is not the general population. Indeed, if it were, and we were dealing with just your average everyday social media poll, it is almost a foregone conclusion that […]

SHOCKING NEWS FROM HARVARD

Sepupus, it’s not every day that I am genuinely shocked by a piece of news.  It’s also not every day that I feel compelled to use an O.O react on Instagram.  Today’s news gave me both opportunities in a double-whammy perfect storm.  The Trump administration will be revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students.  You might think that this is a simple matter that affects just one generation of students, as Singapore’s Calvin Cheng hinted, but no, that’s not the case. It affects multiple generations of students, and not just the ones who are going over to Harvard, but also the ones who are currently there. Well, I know you all better than you think.  Most of you would probably immediately declare that this is unconscionable, an attack against freedom, a fight against the good of the world and the darkest evil – unstoppable sword, immovable shield, justice and destruction – the very recounting of the Bhagavad Gita itself by Robert J Oppenheimer (Harvard University 4.0 Summa Cum Laude I believe) himself when he said: At the time that Oppenheimer had recounted these ominous words, nobody had died and it all seemed like a test that would merely remain a test. Nothing really would happen, would it? The United States wouldn’t dare use the atom bomb, would it? Yet, on August 6, Little Boy dropped on Hiroshima, 80,000 people died. On August 9, Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki, 40,000 people died. Including long-term effects from radiation and injuries, the total death toll was estimated to be over 200,000. What happened with Harvard may very well be one of those proclamations, except in slightly less poetic language, but with no less damage, including to many personal friends and acquaintances from Malaysia and beyond.  Now, I know what some of you might say: FAFO.  F*** Around and Find Out. But I think it […]

Inevitable Hash Brown

In the journey of life, change is inevitable and I say that unironically. Why “unironically”? Because people have repeated “change is inevitable” to high heaven and it often comes off like a word hash brown, fresh off the shelf of a cooling rack; toasty, delicious, yet ultimately unhealthy, factually fast food language. Yet so as the hash brown is delicious, so is the language of ‘change is inevitable’, only to be appreciated if it is savored properly. If it seems a little strange to you that I’m writing about hash browns and change, know that it is for me too, but it is one of those changes I see from 2025 – the sort that involves taking on random streams of thought and fashioning them into the rivulets that add into a current that move forward, summing into a flow. I do wonder a little bit about whether there’s a consistent pattern though. I find that I’ve become a bit more thoughtful about things like these – that I have a higher discernment for what constitutes quality thoughts, while at the same time holding the small blessing of being able to evaluate things in light of a larger goal of social change and transformation through the development of content, ideas, and otherwise. It sometimes feels like I am in the middle of a grand dialectic with the world, one where I stand in the marginal territories of an evanescent frontier, fighting against a world that I do not want to come to pass, aiming to reshape it to my will. I think about so many things. Biology, willpower, society. Mind, hand, money. Power, politics, philosophy. Birth, life, age, death; competition, progress, history; nation, spirituality, world; destiny, history, legacy. It seems to me that these words now come out easily from me, not from the outer rim of the deeper examined mind, […]