Why you should use caution with AI detectors

As tempting as it might be to use Turnitin's artificial intelligence detector as a shortcut, you should not. The tool provides information, not an indictment. The same goes for Turnitin's plagiarism tool.

When Turnitin activated its artificial intelligence detector in April 2023, it provided a substantial amount of nuanced guidance. The company did a laudable job of explaining the strengths and the weaknesses of its new tool, saying that it would rather be cautious and have its tool miss some questionable material than to falsely accuse someone of unethical behavior. It will make mistakes, though, and "that means you'll have to take our predictions, as you should with the output of any AI-powered feature from any company, with a big grain of salt," David Adamson, an AI scientist at Turnitin, said in a video. "You, the instructor, have to make the final interpretation."

We want to emphasize the importance of the instructor's role. AI detection is imperfect, and instructors should use the Turnitin tool with caution.

Why you should use caution

Turnitin walks a fine line between reliability and reality. On the one hand, it says its AI detection tool was “verified in a controlled lab environment” and renders scores with 98% confidence. On the other hand, it appears to have a margin of error of plus or minus 15 percentage points. So a score of 50 could actually be anywhere from 35 to 65.

The tool was also trained on older versions of the language model used in ChatGPT, Gemini, and other platforms. The company warns users that the tool requires “long-form prose text” and doesn’t work with lists, bullet points, or text of less than a few hundred words. It can also be fooled by a mix of original and AI-produced prose.

There are other potential problems.

A study in Computation and Language argues that AI detectors are far more likely to flag the work of non-native English speakers than the work of native speakers. The authors cautioned “against the use of GPT detectors in evaluative or educational settings, particularly when assessing the work of non-native English speakers.”

The Turnitin tool wasn’t tested as part of that study, and the company says it has found no bias against English-language learners in its tool. Seven other AI detectors were included in the study, though, and, clearly, we need to proceed with caution.

So how should instructors use the AI detection tool?

Instead of making quick judgments based on the scores from Turnitin's AI detection tool on Canvas, take a few more steps to gather information. This approach is admittedly more time-consuming than just relying on a score. It is fairer, though.

• Make comparisons. Does the flagged work have a difference in style, tone, spelling, flow, complexity, development of argument, and use of sources and citations than students' previous work? We often detect potential plagiarism by making those sorts of comparisons. AI-generated material raises suspicion for the same reason.
• Talk with students. Meet with students and have them explain their process for research and writing. Have them talk you through the subject matter. Do they understand what they have written? Do they have a grasp on concepts and arguments? Can they explain the meaning of words or phrases you wouldn't expect to see in this sort of assignment? Is the work substantially different from previous work? Those types of discussions will sometimes lead to students admitting use of generative AI. Even if they don't, they can give the instructor a good sense of students' understanding of material.
• Offer a second chance. If you still have doubts after speaking with students, have them redo the assignment. Focus on the problematic aspects of the writing and give students specific feedback.
• If all else fails ...  If you are certain that a student misused generative AI and did no original work, even after discussions and a second chance, give the assignment a zero or a substantial reduction in grade. You can also file an academic misconduct report. You will need to document how you arrived at that conclusion, though.You are far better off erring on the side of caution than devoting lots of time and emotional energy on an academic misconduct claim that may not hold up.

No, this doesn’t mean giving up

We do not condone students' use of AI tools to avoid the intellectual work of their classes. Rather, the lines of use and misuse of AI are blurry. They may always be. That means we will need to rethink assignments and other assessments, and we must continue to adapt as the AI tools grow more sophisticated. We may need to rethink class, department, and school policy. We will need to determine appropriate use of AI in various disciplines. We also need to find ways to integrate artificial intelligence into our courses so that students learn to use it ethically.

If you haven't already:

• Talk with students. Explain why portraying AI-generated work as their own is wrong. Make it clear to students what they gain from doing the work you assign. This is a conversation best had at the beginning of the semester, but it’s worth reinforcing at any point in the class.
• Revisit your syllabus. If you didn't include language in your syllabus about the use of AI-generated text, code or images, add it for next semester. If you included a statement but still had problems, consider whether you need to make it clearer for the next class.

Keep in mind that we are at the beginning of a technological shift that may change many aspects of academia and society. We need to continue discussions about the ethical use of AI. Just as important, we need to work at building trust with our students. When they feel part of a community, feel that their professors have their best interests in mind, and feel that the work they are doing has meaning, they are less likely to cheat. That’s why we recommend use of authentic assignments and strategies for creating community in classes.

Detection software will never keep up with the ability of AI tools to avoid detection. Relying on that software does little more than treat the symptoms of a much bigger, multifaceted problem. That problem involves students’ lack of trust in the educational system, lack of belonging in their classes and at the university, and lack of belief in the intellectual process of education.

Addressing those issues is imperative at all levels of the university. Until we do, instructors will be seen as enforcers, detracting from their most crucial role: teaching and learning.