That's why those types of services (including OpenAI's initial AI detector) often have huge legal disclaimers saying not to take it as 100% accurate.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/08/im-not-drunk-off...
Courts (and authority in general) usually don't appreciate the "oh yeah, well from my point of view the jedi are evil" defense.
However, very occasionally, tricking the offense into skewering their own offensive strategy will work ... that is at least if the deciding authority is in a good mood and you can convince them you're the pragmatic choice.
I feel this is the only way this has a remote chance of actually working. However, I think you also need to make sure that the judge feels in on the joke as opposed to being the butt of the joke.
In 2016 a British company, Advanced Tactical Security And Communications (ATSC), started selling dowsing rods, basically made from old coat-hangers and an empty box as "long range explosive detectors".
From Wikipedia:
""" The device has been sold to 20 countries in the Middle East
and Asia, including Iraq and Afghanistan, for as much as US$60,000
each. The Iraqi government is said to have spent £52 million on
the devices """"
It's no surprise that the "AI detection" racket is going to be a field day for every hoaxer and huckster. But companies like Turnitin have long been selling "black-box" snake-oil "Plagiarism detectors" that have blighted higher education, ruined millions of student's lives, and created thousands of make-work hours for professors.
Really though, it's our fault that we keep treating technology as magic, failing to exercise radical scepticism and robustly challenge the low quality products pedalled by tech companies.
As LLMs continue to improve, it would seem that it is only going to get more difficult to accurately distinguish between content which is AI generated vs human generated, so barring some kind of AI-detection breakthrough, these services will continue to plague students and writers with horrible false positive rates.