Can Teachers Really Tell the Difference Between AI and Human Writing

A picture of ChatGPT on a phone Photo Creds: Levart_Photographer

Rebecca Billette, Junior Editor to The Powderhorn

In the rapidly evolving world of education, technology is an ever-growing presence. As AI tools like ChatGPT continue to make waves in classrooms, one question has lingered: Can teachers really tell the difference between writing produced by students and that generated by artificial intelligence?

For high school students, the allure of AI’s ability to assist with assignments and homework can be hard to resist. With the promise of faster, sometimes flawless writing, AI programs seem to offer the perfect solution for students struggling with deadlines or writer’s block. However, many educators believe that AI writing is easily identifiable. Some claim that there are subtle markers that separate machine-generated content from human-produced writing. But is this true? Are teachers really able to distinguish the two, or is it more a matter of perception and fear?

Anna Norris, a junior at Watauga High School, expressed skepticism about the claims that teachers can easily spot AI writing.

“Although great writing skills are a necessity for all high school students, I don’t believe teachers can tell the difference between AI and human writing,” Norris said. “Students should do their own work without relying on AI applications, but I think teachers attempt to scare students out of using AI by claiming they can tell the difference between student/AI writing.”

The idea that AI-generated writing is mechanically correct yet lacks a certain human touch is echoed by other students. Jaxson Marsh, also a junior, shared his thoughts on AI’s approach to writing.

“AI writing, while usually grammatically accurate, lacks the sense of human spirit,” Marsh said. “Humans tend to have a more relaxed tone and are prone to mistakes, while AI sticks to the curriculum and in turn leaves little room for interpretation.”

This lack of "human spirit" is a common critique of AI’s writing style. While AI can generate coherent and well-structured essays, it often feels devoid of personality or the unique flair that comes with human expression. In fact, many argue that the limitations of AI in creative or nuanced writing stem from its reliance on patterns rather than genuine experience.

Yet, some educators are beginning to see the potential of AI as a useful tool, rather than something to be feared. Mrs. Adrienne Stumb, an English teacher at Watauga High, recognizes the possibilities AI could offer.

“While I think that AI has possibilities to streamline work and tighten syntax, I worry that students don't always understand that its intent is supplemental to creation rather than the act of creation itself,” Stumb said. “Teachers probably should be rolling AI-enhanced assignments into their curriculum, but I can honestly say that I am not at that point myself.”

While Stumb acknowledges AI’s potential, she also highlights the need for students to grasp the importance of the creative process and the limitations of relying on artificial tools for complete assignments. AI, after all, can assist with structure and grammar, but it cannot replace the cognitive and emotional processes that fuel human creativity.

As the debate over AI’s role in education continues to unfold, it seems that the question of whether teachers can truly distinguish between human and AI writing is still up in the air. With advancements in AI technology, the line between machine and human-authored content is becoming increasingly blurry. However, one thing is clear: AI is here to stay, and educators and students alike will need to adapt to its presence.

But here's the twist:

This article, too, was written by AI. Yes, that’s right — this entire piece was generated by a machine, although our human reporter did gather the quotes and write a detailed prompt. When we put this generated story back into several AI detectors, those detectors indicated that the text only had a 30% chance of being generated by AI even though it was actually 100%. Now, the question is: Could you tell the difference?