How we measured AI writing across arXiv, and where the measurement breaks

dopamine_daddy

I scored the full text of 12,750 arXiv papers from 2021 through 2026 to find out how many of these get flagged as machine written and how much it increased since the release of chatGPT. I purposely tuned the detector to avoid false positives. My detection rate pre chatGPT is around .4% for that reason. The biggest results: in Jan of 2026 about 39% of papers got flagged as AI written. In computer science speicifcally the peak was at 65%. Mathematics barely moved away from 0.7%, though the proof heavy math texts might just not get picked up by the detector properly. All this is a detector estimate of a statistical signal and not a proof any given author used AI. Machine written can also mean heavy AI-assisted editing.

jrm4

The important question is: So what? Genuinely. I get that there may be some visceral reaction against this, but when I break it down, I mostly fail to see the problem. Seems like what is actually important is: Compared to before, when a human reads it, do they -- or society -- get something good out of it? Is it worth it to add this to the "pantheon?" If that's not what's happening enough, and if this doesn't describe the process -- then the problem lies elsewhere, no?

willquack

> If a tool marks 40% of new papers as machine-written but also marks 20% of papers written before ChatGPT existed, the real story is the 20% nobody mentioned. When 65% of the papers you read have the characteristics of being AI written, whether or not you use AI to write, your writing will be influenced by the AI style. I imagine this must be particularly the case for newbie researchers who are still developing their writing style

warumdarum

Weimar moment of science

WhyIsItAlwaysHN

Awesome work, the detector seems accurate on a bunch of texts I tried, surprisingly even human/ai hybrid texts

ianm218

Something I've thought about a lot is that there is having someone with some domain knowledge or reason to care a lot about a particular issue spend a bunch of tokens and cycles on it until something useful comes out the other end. The most obvious ones are the math problems that have been coming out and help push the frontier of various areas of math. Another example is taking all of the public NYC open data ecosystem and crunching it to get some value which I have spent a lot of time and tokens on but not found a great medium to share. The question is just how to organize these outputs and conclusions in a way that is consistently reproducible and also how to correct errors or remove LLM nonsense where it refuses to take a position on something. Before it made sense to do this in papers but it feels like we need something like a paper format.. that is fully reproducible ideally and optimized for aggregating knowledge in a better way. I.e. before a person spent months on one of these and there was just more filtering, and the output itself was a clear signal of time spent and effort that no longer exists.

cute_boi

No wonder reading all these paper is tiring these days. I don't want to read slop generated by AI. AI written articles are generally low effort.

Kuinox

I just generated some docs for a lib I'm writing and it says: > 9 % machine likely human-written

cat-whisperer

the funniest part of these AI detectors is that if I were to upload any of einstin's paper's they will all be flagged as AI-written. it makes sense because it's part of their training data. but this post makes me wonder, if more papers' are written with AI, or the shape of knowledge of converging?

pkage

As with all text-only AI detection schemes, I am concerned about the accuracy of the detection. I'm skeptical of the methodology, specifically the final join of the three detector scores---how can you be sure that that final step does not introduce any biases? There's no source available, so it's difficult to tell exactly how this works or reproduce the research. I've also uploaded text samples from my own (unreleased) research from pre-LLM era, and it's seemingly scoring pretty high on the LLM-detection scores. On other papers, nearly every sentence is highlighted as red "machine-leaning," but that does not impact the score? Additionally, there are dramatic differences between the scores for identical text with and without LaTeX formatting, despite the fact that it should not matter. The takeaway from this should be "it is difficult to detect generated text and we should be careful about accepting results simply because they confirm a hypothesis." -- Relatedly, the text above scores as highly machine-written, despite the fact that I just wrote it with my human hands, I promise :)

lingeringpine

I am not a native English speaker. This is not surprising to me. I think most of the papers we write would be flagged by AI detectors. It is not because we ask LLM to write us a paper about X. It is because we are bad at writing in a scientific style, and american editors expect us to do it. With LLMs, we can write in basic sentences and tell the LLM the idea and it converts that to nice writing. If you write each paragraph and have an LLM make that paragraph more scientific, it is entirely your paper, but it is flagged as LLM generated. If you have an LLM write the paper but speak good enough English, you can make it look human even though it is not human.

bilsbie

Just to play devils advocate. These kind of papers are very verbose and boilerplate. I can imagine using AI to write 90% but then the actual novel content and explaining what’s important could be handwritten. Perhaps that’s what’s happening.

pbui

I'm not sure what to think... I uploaded a PyHPC workshop paper I wrote in 2011 and it said 27% machine. I also uploaded my PhD dissertation from 2012 and got back 40% machine, which is just barely below the 42% threshold. I don't publish anymore... but does this mean I wrote like a LLM or did LLMs learn from me? :p Update: I also uploaded a IEEE CLUSTERS paper I wrote in 2015 and it came back 74% machine written :|

tstactplsignore

One challenge with this approach is: could it be possible that the detector is simply learning to recognize words and jargon used more in the literature post 2022 as 'AI'? For example, LLMs love to talk about LLMs (and the people who write with LLMs love to write about LLMs). Could "large language model" itself therefore be flagged as an AI-like phrase by this approach? It didn't exist much in the literature before 2022, does now, and certainly does more in AI-generated text: but, it is not actually a great way to distinguish modern AI generated text from human written text. A helpful control would be to show that on some cohort of papers that can be declared reasonably clean of LLM generated text post 2023 there are very low rates compared to the arxiv. For example, while papers in the journals Nature and Science are unlikely to be entirely LLM free at this point, if those were tested through 2026, we should see a line significantly lower than the arxiv's growth.

guywithahat

People are saying this is a bad thing but is it really a problem? The compelling aspect of research is the data and/or description of work, not the writing. Papers probably should be written by AI so that they're clear and well presented, while the researchers should focus on generating good data. If there is no data or work behind the paper, we should question whether the research group needs funding.

JamesBarney

Honestly academic writing is the only place where I think AI slop might be an improvement over the status quo writing style.

arjunvrofficial

Good contents should always thrive, with or without AI

arjunvrofficial

Good contents will always thrive, with or without AI

linolevan

I’m very skeptical of these results. I run a pretty large group paper website on top of arXiv and we run pangram on papers. The numbers are not nearly this high. One thing I see a lot is papers flagged as AI because they include llm rollouts in the paper as examples.

hereme888

I run most professional statements and articles through LLMs before submission. This helps correct grammar and improves accessibility through better syntax (because I write exactly how I think). The article doesn't seem to mention consideration of AI for polishing human work.