Review pasted text or supported documents for probabilistic AI-writing signals. Detector de IA reports risk, evidence strength, sentence highlights, and limitations, then lets you copy a summary or export a printable report. Results require context and do not prove authorship or definite AI use.
No reviews yetBe the first to leave a review for Detector de IA
Hunter
📌
Hi Product Hunt, I built Detector de IA because I kept hitting the same workflow gap:
People were getting a detector percentage without enough context to understand what it could and could not support.
I wanted the report to show uncertainty instead of turning one percentage into an accusation. The score is a review signal, and the final judgment still belongs to a person with the surrounding context.
1. Paste 300 to 100,000 characters or upload a supported PDF, DOCX, TXT, or Markdown document under 12 MB.
2. Run the analysis and review the probabilistic verdict, risk, evidence strength, and sentence highlights.
3. Check the highlighted passages in context instead of treating the score as proof.
4. Copy the summary or export the printable report for a separate human review.
Results can include false positives and false negatives. They do not prove authorship, plagiarism, misconduct, or definite AI use, and should not be the sole basis for high-impact decisions.
I would appreciate feedback on:
- whether the distinction between a review signal and proof is clear enough
- whether sentence highlights and evidence notes provide enough context before export
- which document-review step still needs a clearer explanation
Report
how does it handle mixed text where someone rewrote AI output in their own words, does the evidence strength actually drop or just confidently flag the whole thing as suspicious?
Report
Hunter
@kymetdasek7qy6 Great question. In that mixed/reworked case, I would expect the evidence strength to become less uniform rather than confidently flagging the whole text. The report is meant to show sentence-level signals and uncertainty, so if someone rewrites heavily in their own voice, the stronger signals should usually narrow or drop. It can still catch repeated AI-like structure or phrasing, but I would treat that as a review cue, not a conclusion.
Report
How does this handle heavily edited AI drafts where someone rewrites most of it in their own voice, does it still flag strong signals or does the evidence strength drop off quickly in that scenario?
Report
Hunter
@alperpmzy Great question. For heavily rewritten AI drafts, the goal is not to confidently flag the whole text. The evidence should become more mixed: some sentence-level signals may remain, but strength should usually drop or narrow as the writing becomes more personal. I’d treat it as a review cue, not a conclusion.
how does it handle mixed text where someone rewrote AI output in their own words, does the evidence strength actually drop or just confidently flag the whole thing as suspicious?
@kymetdasek7qy6 Great question. In that mixed/reworked case, I would expect the evidence strength to become less uniform rather than confidently flagging the whole text. The report is meant to show sentence-level signals and uncertainty, so if someone rewrites heavily in their own voice, the stronger signals should usually narrow or drop. It can still catch repeated AI-like structure or phrasing, but I would treat that as a review cue, not a conclusion.
How does this handle heavily edited AI drafts where someone rewrites most of it in their own voice, does it still flag strong signals or does the evidence strength drop off quickly in that scenario?
@alperpmzy Great question. For heavily rewritten AI drafts, the goal is not to confidently flag the whole text. The evidence should become more mixed: some sentence-level signals may remain, but strength should usually drop or narrow as the writing becomes more personal. I’d treat it as a review cue, not a conclusion.