AI-writing guide

Did AI write this?

Text can contain AI-associated patterns, but style alone rarely identifies its author. A fair investigation combines limited signals with drafts, sources, process evidence and direct conversation.

Written and reviewed by the Another AI Lie Editorial Team · Last reviewed 8 September 2026

The central distinction: “This text has patterns sometimes associated with generated writing” is not the same as “AI wrote this”. Detection, authorship and misconduct are different questions.

Why the prose cannot settle authorship

Human writing varies with editing, language background, genre, templates and assistive tools. Generated text can also be heavily rewritten. Fluency, repeated transitions, even sentence length or generic wording may raise questions, but none uniquely belongs to AI.

Separate four different checks

Factual support: are checkable claims supported by suitable sources?
Attribution: are quotations, ideas and sources acknowledged?
Public-source similarity: does distinctive wording appear elsewhere?
Process or authorship: what drafts, notes, version history or permitted-use declaration exist?

A passage can be factually sound but improperly attributed, or original but factually wrong. One result must not stand in for another.

Use stronger process evidence

Where the setting permits it, review drafts, notes, source history and revision patterns. Ask the writer to explain an argument, source choice or revision. Apply the same process consistently and follow the relevant school, workplace or publication policy.

Avoid unfair conclusions

Do not make an accusation from a percentage or screenshot. Record the tool, version, material tested, limitations and corroborating evidence. Short, edited, translated, formulaic or non-native-English writing may be especially unsuitable for confident classification.

What a responsible result sounds like

Prefer: “The passage contains some AI-associated language patterns; authorship was not established. Two factual claims lack citations, and no distinctive public-source match was found in the checked web coverage.” This tells the reader what was observed and what remains unknown.

Research and further reading

Try a separated check

Check evidence and public wording—not a person

Paste a short passage. We will examine factual support and distinctive public wording without claiming to prove authorship.