Paste text — we estimate AI-written likelihood from style, repetition and clichés, with no model. A rough guide, not proof.
Paste text — we estimate AI-written likelihood from style, repetition and clichés, with no model. A rough guide, not proof. Free with no sign-up, and the analysis runs inside your browser — files never leave your device. On our public gate (30 real + 52 AI images) it measured 96.3% at original quality and 91.5% on recompressed copies, with zero real photos confidently mislabelled as AI. Treat it as an indicator, not proof: the newest commercial generators evade every detector.
Estimate whether a passage was written by a person or shows the tell-tale statistical fingerprint of generative AI such as ChatGPT or Gemini. Everything runs inside your browser — your text is never uploaded — so even sensitive writing is safe to check.
First, sentence-length rhythm (burstiness). People mix short and long sentences; AI text often flattens into an even, uniform length. Second, lexical and structural repetition — the same connectors ("furthermore", "in conclusion") or sentence shapes recurring on a schedule raises the odds of machine generation.
Third, clichés — bland, hollow phrases ("in today's fast-changing world", "plays a crucial role in") clustered together. Fourth, excessive formality and uniformity: writing with no typos, no colloquialisms and no emotional variance reads more like a model than a human.
The score runs 0–100% as a relative "likelihood it was AI-written". Roughly, above 65% is high, 35–65% is uncertain, below 35% is low. Each signal bar shows how much that factor contributed.
With very little text (two or three sentences), the statistics are unstable and a "low confidence" warning appears — treat the score as a hint only. A full paragraph, ideally five or more sentences, gives a far steadier read.
Style-statistics detection has inherent limits. A carefully formal human report can be flagged as AI, while an AI draft lightly edited by a person, or output from the newest models, can slip through as human. Machine-translated text also skews the numbers.
So treat the result as a starting point for suspicion, not proof. Read for the things only a human can catch — factual errors, unsupported claims, missing context — and never use this as sole evidence in academic or hiring decisions.
No. Analysis happens entirely in your browser and the text is never uploaded to a server.
There is no absolute threshold. A high score only means the writing is strongly "AI-like"; always combine it with human review.
Signals like sentence length and repetition are largely language-independent and generally work, but the cliché dictionary is tuned for Korean and English.