How to detect AI writing vs. good old-fashioned research

[Amelia]

So we all know the tell-tale signs: overly perfect grammar, lack of personal anecdotes, and that weirdly formal tone. But what happens when the AI gets good? I'm writing a paper on climate change, and I'm using AI to summarize dense scientific articles.

My question is more philosophical, I guess. If I take that perfectly structured summary, rewrite it in my own voice, and add my own analysis, is that still "AI writing"? More practically, how do professors draw the line between a student who used AI as a research assistant and a student who just had the AI write the whole thing?

How to detect ai writing when it's been blended with real effort? I think it's a fascinating gray area we're all navigating.

 

[FrankM]

Most professors are asking it too right now.

Here's how I think about it as someone who grades papers: AI as a tool is fine. AI as a replacement is not. If you're using it to summarize dense articles so you can actually engage with the material? Smart. That's like using a calculator to check your math—you still had to set up the problem.

The red flags come when the paper lacks YOUR fingerprint. No weird tangents. No moments where you push back against a source. No sentences that sound like someone who's been awake for 48 hours writing about something they're genuinely confused by. Real research has messiness. AI has polish.

Use the tool. Just make sure the soul stays yours.