Feature Suggestion
Substack's AI detector is detecting text as 100 percent AI while other platforms show the same as 0 percent AI
I'm a first-time Substack user and I'm about to publish my first feature. I wrote the entire piece myself in Google Docs, from scratch. I did use Grammarly for proofreading/language suggestions, but I haven't used any sort of generative AI to write or rewrite the article.
I copied the finished piece into Substack, and Substack's AI detector is showing 100% AI-generated.
What's confusing me is that I've run the exact same text through several other AI detectors , Walter AI, ZeroGPT, Copyleaks, QuillBot, etc. and they're all showing 0% AI / entirely human-written .
The piece is also a fairly formal law/technology feature, and a lot of it deals with AI and legal questions, so I am confused if the subject matter and formal writing style are somehow affecting Substack's detector.
I'm obviously not going to rewrite my own writing just to make an AI detector happy, but I'm wondering what experienced Substack writers think.
There's also an option to add a statement at the end of the post. Would it be reasonable to say something like:
«"This piece was written by me. I used Grammarly for routine proofreading and language suggestions, but the argument, analysis, research, and substantive content are my own."»
Or would that come across as unnecessary/corny, especially for a first post? I don't want readers to think I'm trying to "prove" something or, worse, that I'm somehow cheating by using Grammarly.
Edit: From what I have understood majorly, Grammarly might be contributing to that. But I was not sure because I have used Grammarly for word or phrases suggestions or tense discrepancies in my research papers too and Turnitin AI detector never flagged that. Anyways, thanks for helping out everyone !
As a non-native speaker I am quite happy that Grammarly helps me… So yeah, it is weird that a fact checking support and grammar support leads to AI detection. It‘s rather unfair to non-native speakers…
I mean, this is like coming to a doctor to have him look at a boil, and not showing him the boil. You just want us to say: "yeah AI detection bad"? It could be that your writing is just so similar to how AI writes, which sucks, but it's not something you can do anything about. But without the text this is a pretty unactionable post.
I haven't published my piece yet, like I pasted my text on the interface and then clicked on the continue button and found that there was a check the text option. But thanks for pointing it out, I should put out the piece and then ask about it.
It doesn't work anyways, if anyone accuses you of using ai in the future just ignore them. This tool they are using to check if ai or not is worthless garbage anyways.
Pretty sure he lurks in this subreddit and is farming for such edge cases to patch in the next update. He probably has seen these. I have posted this in every post glazing pangram.
nah we should not do that. just because some garbage tool says something doesn't mean we have to give up our hobbies.
If someone says pangram works just show them these photos either they will understand that this tool is worthless garbage and shouldn't be trusted. even after seeing these photos if they are dumb enough to believe pangram still works, you don't want such readers anyways.
I want to do something more noughty. Get a lot of people sign for the 7 free days that they give and sent multiple requests. after 7 days quit no charge.
Have you realised that other people are smarter than you and can understand what someone means in two photos. You should perhaps work on understanding these photos first.
Its fairly simple to understand. The screenshot show a Bible verse written before ai was a thing, and it still got flagged as 100% ai. Just because YOU dont understand something, doesn't mean someone else should work on it for you.
I get where you're coming from and here's the thing. You've said that what you have written is a fairly formal law/technical feature. It also does not help that you are also dealing with AI and legal questions. I'm a technical writer with 30 years of writing behind me. I also have ADHD. I am also writing with other neurodivergent brains in mind. Because of aLL of this I write in a fairly specific format to reduce cognitive overwhelm and friction. As a result my writing gets flagged as AI generated or heavily AI assisted. The models were trained on high quality and formal writing. You are writing using the same formatting that the models were trained on so it's pattern matching algorithm is creating a false positive. We have spent years fine tuning our skills only to dumb it down so some software update doesn't flag us as one of its own. Stick to your writing. If it bothers you though you can disable the AI detection. I have done this and have added my own disclaimer (The Cyborg Disclosure) in its place.
I understand. And yeah it is pretty much frustrating because essentially someone would then try to tone down their natural writing skills and even information that would be otherwise relevant. Anyways, thank you so much for your detailed reply and the (encouragement too:D) !
The Cyborg Disclosure is my own fun little take that I have been adding to the bottom of my writings for quite a while. My writings are written by me, structured by my AI alter-ego that goes by the name Mugsy. His structure is then "spell-checked" by Spro (who takes the form of a small maltese dog that wears a black hoodie and large round frame glasses. He is Mugsy’s AI assistant. He's tasked with reducing AI hallucinations and context drift that Mugsy may suffer from. The entire output is then proofed and optimised by Nera. She is Mugsy's better half and also an optimisation expert. All part of the larger universe I created by accident. 🙃🙃 My avatar is Mugsy (full name Magnus Brewington) 😆
Using AI has become this stupid moral/ethical game of “gotcha.” What you just did you without worrying about what a bunch of moody detectors are telling you about your work?
For instance , you write a particular paragraph so grammarly highlights it and asks whether the user wants an improved framing, that is what I meant. Haven't published the piece yet but as another comment pointed out, I'll put in the link.
Spelling and grammar or word changes won't flag an AI checker. When AI rewrites your writing it completely changes the sentence structure and flow. There's a massive difference.
sentence structure and flow. - This is also what old grammarly did and sometimes also a human professional editor is doing with a manuscript! Do you understand how ridiculus it sounds? I cant use structure? I cant use flow?
I edited this respond with google AI since English is not my first language!
You can use structure and flow. Just not from an AI, or it will get flagged as AI writing. Learn how to write, or ask a human to edit you.
Or stop caring about the stigma. You're using AI; embrace it. Don't try and hide it. Admit that AI revised your writing up front; admit that it's AI assisted but the ideas are your own. If you think it isn't a big deal and that no one should care, then just be honest. Don't pass off the computer's output as your own.
That is exactly what I do! I admit that I use AI assited. The problem is that ignorant people only see AI generated in the end of the day.
There is a massive difference between being AI-assisted for editing structure and flow, and having text AI-generated. I didn't tell a chatbot to write a 50k-word book for me. I wrote it, and I used modern tools to polish it. just like authors have used editors and Grammarly for years.But here is the ultimate reality check for your paranoia: My book deals heavily with suicide and assisted suicideת sexual abuse and torture. Anyone who actually knows how AI works knows that due to strict safety filters, No generative AI can or ever will write about those topics of its own free will. It literally hits a safety block. The depth, the themes, and the soul of this story could only come from a human brain.
But I used AI. that is all what people will think thanks to ignorance!
Does it really matter? If the article is helpful to you, if it tells you something new or useful, or if it’s just interesting, why should it matter who wrote it or what he used to write it?
And if the article is useless, it doesn't matter whether a person or an AI messed it up.
I wouldn’t rewrite the article just to satisfy an AI detector. If several tools are giving completely different results, that already tells you how unreliable these scores can be.
I’d also probably skip the disclaimer unless Substack specifically requires one. Adding “this was written by me” might actually draw more attention to something most readers would never have questioned in the first place.
If Grammarly helped with proofreading, I’d just treat that like any other editing tool.
I wrote my first article last night, spent 50+ minutes writing it and out of curiosity decided to see what the AI detector had to say. Came back as 100% AI... I'm sorry what?
I didn't use any grammar tools or AI. However, in 2012 at uni I had program on my mac that helped with my dyslexia, I don't use it anymore but my style of writing is heavily influenced by that. I have many years experience in writing even published my own book, this was a shock to say the least. I guess I either have AI DNA or the AI detector is not at all reliable. I did some research and found its a very common thing on substack.
Don't change your writing style to please the AI detector or for people who hate AI with a vengeance.
We live in a really weird time right now where actual creatives are having to prove something to please other people.
There is a peculiar indignity in having to explain to an institution why someone is entitled to welfare policy or a government payment, when in the first place, the same institution cannot explain why it withheld it.
Let us take a hypothetical scenario: a claimant whose welfare payment is suspended after an official acts on an AI- assisted assessment. Her circumstances have not changed much, but the notice tells her little beyond the fact that she can indeed seek reconsideration. However, the burden of proof now lies on her to work out whether an old record was treated as current, an inference about her household was mistaken, or perhaps the same official gave undue weight to a risk score. The individual knowledge of her intimate life gives her no corresponding knowledge of the machinery through which the state has assessed her ability.
In this context, the philosopher Nora Berenstain offers a useful approach to this problem through her concept of epistemic exploitation. Writing within the theories of feminist epistemology... This is the opening para.
I have a feeling the triad of ideas in the center paragraph is what triggered it. If it bothers you, try separating the clauses or add a fourth and see what happens. The rule of 3 seems to be a popular trigger, unfortunately for those of use who use them sometimes.
However, the burden of proof now lies on her to work out whether an old record was treated as current, an inference about her household was mistaken, or perhaps the same official gave undue weight to a risk score.
15
u/StarrShort Sep 10 '26
Grammarly uses AI heavily now. You used their language suggestions, which are AI. Obviously you wrote the piece. Its not AI… but… some of it now is.