It is obvious that the biggest concern students are having today when writing papers and essays is whether their paper will end up getting flagged as AI-generated content. We have definitely heard stories about AI detection in colleges across the world and how students are getting wrongly accused of AI use.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is definitely a big advancement as far as technology is concerned. However, we as BorderLess Observer, we have received so many claims of students who got punished for using AI in their papers despite doing the paper from scratch.
Top 5 proofs and reasons why Copyleaks is an unreliable AI detector
- Disregards the Structure of the Paper
- Inconsistent Detection Results
- Suspiciously Fast Detection Times
- Cost-Intensive for Students
- Lack of True Accuracy in AI Detectors
Students have been paying for essay writing and research paper writing on some companies like Coursepivot.com and Edusson.com. With AI, it is not easier to do a 5-paragraph paper in 20 minutes. Nevertheless, trouble comes at ensuring this content is humanized before submission. Again, we have seen a proliferation of AI humanizers in the recent past, which is a topic by itself.
Before we even address the concern of what proofs to use when accused of using AI, it is important to we talk about Copyleaks. Obviously, Copyleaks.com is one of the top AI detectors we have today, but not really helpful when it comes to accurately labeling content as human or AI. I believe there are several reviews of best AI humanizing sites or tools out there that mention Copyleaks and others like StealthGPT and AIhumanizer.ai etc. Today, we have five reasons why we believe Copyleaks is not reliable as far as checking whether content is written using AI or not.
1. Copyleaks Disregards the Structure of the Paper
One of the main issues with Copyleaks as an AI detector is its inability to preserve the structure of the submitted document during analysis. When you submit a paper for AI detection, you would expect the tool to assess the content without disrupting its format. However, Copyleaks often jumbles the original structure, leading to disorganized outputs that can confuse users and mislead instructors.
In several instances, students have reported that upon submitting papers with carefully formatted sections—such as headings, subheadings, bullet points, and quotes—Copyleaks would return results that ignore these elements altogether. The result is an output that misrepresents the flow of the original document. For example, a student might submit a research paper with clear section breaks, yet Copyleaks may start flagging the content from an introductory heading or even the student’s name, which is clearly not AI-generated.
This issue raises a significant concern: if the tool cannot distinguish between an introductory heading or personal credentials and actual body text, how can it reliably detect AI-generated content? Such errors undermine the credibility of the tool and make it unreliable, especially for students submitting academic papers where structure is crucial for readability and evaluation.
I personally encountered this issue when I tested Copyleaks with a paper that had a proper structure, including numbered headings, bullet points, and quotes. To my surprise, the tool flagged content starting from a section heading as AI-generated. Even more absurdly, it flagged my name in the title page as AI-generated content. Clearly, my name was not produced by any AI tool! This kind of error makes Copyleaks unreliable, as it can’t differentiate between actual content and simple structural elements like headings and personal information.
The unreliability here is not just in the detection of AI but also in how Copyleaks processes and presents content—scrambling the document’s organization to the point that it starts inaccurately identifying human-generated content as artificial, simply because the original layout is not retained. This causes unnecessary panic for students who, despite their best efforts to write original papers, may still face penalties based on false detection results.
2. Small Edits Can Drastically Change AI Detection Results
Another major flaw with Copyleaks is the inconsistency in its AI detection when small edits are made. There have been numerous instances where a paper is initially flagged as high as 98% AI-generated, but after changing just a few sentences—sometimes as little as two or three in an entire section of five paragraphs—the detection score drops to 0%. This drastic shift raises serious questions about the reliability of the tool in identifying AI-generated content.
May be you are wondering, when am editing my paper to pass AI detection, what should I focus on? If you want to humanize AI content and bypass AI detectors such as Turnitin, here are some proven tips based on experience and also proven by other writers.
- Remove Passiveness and Use Active Voice
- Transform passive constructions into active ones to create a more engaging and dynamic writing style.
- Avoid Pronouns Like “This” and “Those”
- Rephrase sentences to eliminate vague pronouns, making the writing clearer and more direct.
- Manually Rewrite and Paraphrase Flagged Content
- Take the time to rewrite and paraphrase flagged sentences one at a time, using reliable tools like Turnitin AI checker to ensure they pass as human-generated.
- Simplify Complex Sentences
- Avoid long sentences that include multiple commas; instead, break them into shorter sentences using colons or semi-colons where appropriate.
- Steer Clear of AI-Associated Vocabulary
- Replace terms commonly associated with AI-generated content, such as “intricate,” “landscape,” “in conclusion,” or “tapestry,” with simpler, more natural language.
If a tool claims that a paper is almost entirely written by AI, how is it possible that changing a couple of sentences results in the entire document being classified as human-written? This suggests that Copyleaks’ detection algorithms may be overly reliant on superficial factors, such as the structure or specific phrasing, rather than an in-depth analysis of whether the content was truly AI-generated.
For instance, I submitted a five-paragraph essay to Copyleaks, and it flagged the content as 98% AI-generated. Intrigued by this, I decided to experiment. I edited only two sentences at the beginning of the first paragraph—nothing else. When I resubmitted the paper, the result came back as 0% AI-generated.
This experience made me question the accuracy of the tool. If Copyleaks is so easily swayed by minimal edits, then the detection is clearly not reliable.
This kind of discrepancy demonstrates that Copyleaks might be relying on patterns or certain types of phrasing to flag content, rather than genuinely assessing whether the entire paper was generated using AI. It also suggests that students, even when writing original content, could unintentionally trigger these systems, causing their papers to be inaccurately flagged as AI-generated. This inconsistency can be extremely frustrating for students who are penalized for AI use even when they have done the work from scratch.
3. Suspiciously Fast Detection Times for Long Content
Another red flag that questions Copyleaks’ reliability as an AI detector is the extremely short time it takes to process and analyze long documents. For instance, Copyleaks can scan a nine-page paper and return AI detection results in under 20 seconds. While fast results might seem convenient, they raise doubts about the depth of analysis performed by the tool.
AI detection, especially when evaluating long content, should be a thorough process that examines multiple factors, such as patterns, linguistic nuances, and the potential use of AI-generation systems.
If Copyleaks is delivering results so quickly, it suggests that the tool might not be conducting a comprehensive review. In comparison, Turnitin—a more widely trusted academic integrity tool—takes significantly longer to scan similar-length documents for AI content, often around 2 minutes or more. This extra time likely indicates a more detailed and methodical approach to analyzing the document.
For instance, I submitted a nine-page essay to both Copyleaks and Turnitin for AI detection. Copyleaks returned its results in under 20 seconds, flagging the document as partially AI-generated. On the other hand, Turnitin took approximately 2 minutes to process the same document, providing a more detailed report. The speed of Copyleaks left me wondering whether it had truly analyzed the content or simply scanned for basic structural cues.
While speed might depend on the system’s processing capabilities, in the context of AI detection, a faster result does not necessarily equate to a more reliable one. The fact that Copyleaks can flag content so quickly without taking the necessary time to thoroughly check for AI-generated patterns suggests that the tool might be making shallow assessments rather than evaluating the content rigorously. As a result, students may be wrongfully flagged, not because their content is AI-generated, but because the system is rushing through the analysis process.
4. Cost-Intensive for Students
Copyleaks is also unreliable for students who are looking for a cost-friendly solution to AI detection. The tool operates on a credit-based system, where checking just 250 words costs 1 credit. This might seem reasonable for short papers, but for longer documents, such as a 10-page paper, a student could use up to 10 credits in a single scan. The issue becomes even more problematic if the paper gets flagged as AI-generated and requires multiple rounds of editing and rescanning.
Cheapest AI detectors in 2024
- ZeroGPT.com – From as low as $8
- Winston AI – From as low as $12
- Copyleaks.com – From $8
- Sapling.ai – From as low as $25
Humanizing AI-generated content often involves several edits, meaning that students might have to resubmit their papers multiple times to ensure that it passes AI detection. In some cases, students may end up using 40 or 50 credits for a single paper due to these rescans, depleting their credits quickly. When they run out of credits, they are forced to purchase more, which can become expensive—especially for students already struggling financially. This pricing model feels like a money-making scheme rather than a service designed to support students.
Imagine a student submits a 10-page paper for AI detection and Copyleaks flags it as 98% AI-generated. After making edits, they resubmit it multiple times, using up a significant number of credits in the process—up to 50 or more.
With each scan costing credits, the student is eventually forced to purchase more credits to continue using the service. If they are on a tight budget, this can become unsustainable, especially when compared to other services like ZeroGPT that offer subscription-based pricing, allowing unlimited scans for a flat monthly fee.
A subscription model would be a much more student-friendly approach, as it would allow unlimited scanning for a set price each month. However, Copyleaks’ reliance on a credit system seems more focused on generating revenue than helping students navigate AI detection issues affordably. This makes it unreliable for students who need to check multiple drafts without breaking the bank. Copyleaks should consider switching to a monthly package option to provide better value to students, similar to what other AI detection tools like ZeroGPT offer.
5. Lack of True Accuracy in AI Detectors
Finally, one of the most significant issues with Copyleaks, as well as other AI detection tools, is the overarching concern regarding accuracy. To date, no AI detector can reliably claim to be 100% accurate in distinguishing between human-written and AI-generated content. The algorithms behind these tools are primarily based on assumptions and estimates of writing patterns rather than concrete proof of AI generation.
When tools like Copyleaks boast of their capabilities—sometimes claiming up to 99% accuracy—it’s crucial to recognize that these figures are often misleading. The detection process is largely speculative, relying on the tool’s interpretation of various features in the text rather than a definitive assessment.
For instance, if you take content from a book or research paper published before the advent of AI generative tools, such as those from 2010 or earlier, and submit it to Copyleaks, you might be surprised by the results. Many students have found that even established texts can be flagged as AI-generated, highlighting a critical flaw in the detection model.
Here are the best reliable AI detectors for students:
- Turnitin – This is the only legit and reliable AI checker for students and is used by institutions across the world.
- Zerogpt.com – This is perfect for students and very cheap and easy to use.
- Sapling.ai – Also reliable in detecting most AI generated content but use with caution.
So back to Copyleaks:
In my own testing, I submitted several passages from well-known research papers dating back to 2010 to Copyleaks for AI detection. To my astonishment, many of these samples were flagged with varying percentages of AI content. In some cases, the tool indicated that the content was over 70% AI-generated, despite the fact that these texts were authored long before any generative AI was available. This inconsistency demonstrates the unreliability of Copyleaks and similar tools.
The reality is that no AI detector has proven to be entirely accurate or dependable. They often operate on guesswork, which can lead to significant errors in flagging genuine human writing as AI-generated. This unreliability can have serious consequences for students, who may face unwarranted academic penalties due to faulty detection results. Until a truly accurate model for AI detection is developed, tools like Copyleaks should be approached with caution. It is essential for students to be aware that the claims made by these detectors are not necessarily reflective of their true capabilities.
My Final Take
I firmly believe that AI detectors are inherently unreliable and should not be the sole basis for evaluating student work. The technology is still in its infancy, often yielding inconsistent results that can unfairly penalize students for merely expressing their thoughts and ideas.
Just as we have established thresholds for plagiarism—recognizing that some overlap in language is inevitable—similar standards should apply to AI detection. A reasonable threshold, such as 20% AI detection, could serve as a guideline for instructors, allowing them to address potential concerns without imposing harsh penalties on students striving to produce original work.
Expecting a flawless 0% AI reading is not only unrealistic but also undermines the creativity and individuality that education seeks to foster. Instead of relying solely on these flawed tools, instructors should engage in meaningful dialogue with students to understand their writing processes and provide constructive feedback.
