Yes, but I wonder if learning that part of a paper is likely AI and part of it is likely not, might be a signal.

What are your thoughts on the AI-generated image detectors?

1. I determined the post was AI myself. The detector was merely to satisfy someone disingenuously asking for "proof".

2. This one works. It's peer-reviewed.

> This one works. It's peer-reviewed.

It may benchmark well, but in the wild none are much better than coin flip. A quick Google search shows that Pangram's weakness is "false positives on creative writing", and that it's trivially fooled.

Determined how?

By having native English language proficiency and an IQ above 100.

This isn't even particularly good slop. If you can't identify this, we're entering a not so good space.

Anyhow, I'd recommend you roll away from this hill because it's really not worth dying on. Common sense and peer reviewed slop detection aren't working for you. I provided my opinion and backed it with evidence. That's why I posted what I did.