“AI detectors” do NOT work reliably.
Even humans who are ever-so-certain about being able to identify AI usage constantly embarrass themselves when that claimed ability is put to the test. Look up “AI Monet Instagram” for a social experiment where hundreds of cocksure users pointed out “AI signs” in what was claimed to be an AI-generated painting in the style of Monet, but was actually a genuine Monet.
Pass enough of someone's work through one, such as Pangram with a low FPR, and you can gain confidence.
Add in your own intuition plus multiple scans of someone's work, plus any weird claims they make, and you can raise the certainy bar.
There is room for error, but come on. To say they don't work at all and you can't combine multiple methods to come to reasonable conclusions?
I'll accept it is with fault. The problem could be alleviated if people just were honest about the use of generative AI usage and others didn't judge so harshly the use rather than the outcome.
I said at the start I don't care if it was used. I just want honesty.
That is, if you claim that something posted by someone else is written by AI, and that turns out to not be the case, do you accept that others have the right to call you a liar and a fraud?
Or is it that when you say “I just want honesty”, you really mean “I just want to be able to throw around accusations of AI usage based on my hunches and a number displayed on a website”?