Detecting AI Impostors: How Do Middle Schoolers Identify LLM Agents in a Live Collaborative Setting?

LLMs can imitate how people write, which raises concerns about impersonation, trust, and detection in social settings. These concerns are especially important for adolescents, who use generative AI frequently but may struggle to recognize it. We introduce \textit{DoppelBot}, a cooperative social deduction game designed to study how young people detect and respond to AI impersonation. Through studies with middle schoolers, we investigate whether a DoppelBot prompts reflection on privacy and impersonation, how repeated exposure affects AI-detection accuracy as agents become more personalized, and which strategies students use to identify AI doppelgängers. We find that students' detection accuracy improves over time, driven by a shift from relying on linguistic cues to leveraging shared social and contextual signals. Students also demonstrated an understanding of AI limitations such as embodiment and reflected on broader issues such as data privacy. To support future research, we release an anonymized dataset of game transcripts and voting behavior.

Style as a Confound: False Positives in AI Detection of Non-Native Academic Writing

AI text detectors are increasingly employed in academic settings, but it remains unclear whether their outputs reflect AI authorship itself or broader linguistic features associated with polished academic English. Previous studies have reported high false-positive rates (FPRs) for non-native English writing, but population-level comparisons confound authorship with differences in topic, domain, and writing style. Professional editing provides a useful setting for examining this issue because it changes the linguistic form of manuscripts while preserving authorship and content. We examined 135,389 document pairs from a professional English editing service (2018-2025), comprising non-native manuscripts and their native-edited versions, to assess how editing affects detector responses controlling for content and authorship. For the 13 AI text detectors, FPRs for human-written texts varied widely, from 0.0% to 100.0%. Responses varied across detectors: the same edits increased AI scores in some detectors but decreased them in others. Notably, score changes correlated with the extent of editing. The findings identify professional editing style as a key confounding variable in AI detector outputs, rather than establishing a full separation of text origin from linguistic style, raising concerns about fairness and reliability in academic settings.

Why AI Detection Fails for Academic Integrity

Institutions use commercial AI detectors for academic integrity, yet detectors cannot distinguish AI editing from full LLM drafts and may treat both as misconduct. In a controlled study of published English abstracts (four domains; 2013 to 2015 vs. 2023 to 2025), we quantify this policy failure under proxy human/AI labels at tau=0.50. Light "refine abstract only" edits, a proxy for guideline-compliant AI assistance, are flagged at 38 to 80%. Unmodified 2023 to 2025 originals are flagged at 9 to 15%, with non-STEM rates far above STEM (p<0.001); elevated scores track long-token and Academic Word List density, not authorship intent alone. After Undetectable AI humanization, evasion is near-total: fewer than 4% of AI-labeled rewrites remain flagged (post-humanization detection rate <4%; FNR >96%). Honest AI-editing results in a higher sanction risk than humanizer-assisted evasion. Therefore, detector scores should not serve as standalone misconduct evidence.

The Misclassification of Autistic Writing as AI-Generated

Recent findings suggest that detection models for artificial intelligence (AI) cannot accurately identify AI-generated text and may exhibit bias against certain minority groups. In the present study, anecdotal claims that autistic writers more often have their work flagged as AI-generated are examined empirically. A corpus of approximately 60,000 Reddit posts split into "likely-autistic" and "general-Reddit" subcorpora is used to compare the distribution of probabilities output by the OpenAI GPT-2 detection model. Differences in textual features between subcorpora are observed and compared to reported features of AI-generated text. Results showed that while less than two-percent of either subcorpus was flagged as AI-generated by the model, significantly more texts from the likely-autistic subcorpus were flagged. Connections between features of text with likely-autistic authors and AI-generated text were not straightforward. The widespread use of AI-detection models with a potential bias against autistic writers in their output prompts ethical scrutiny, and the authors recommend further critical examination of the models themselves as well as their use in academic contexts.

Inverse Turing Bench: Evaluating Language Models as Judges of Human vs. AI Dialogue

As AI systems integrate into online spaces, differentiating them from humans in conversations is increasingly important. We present Inverse Turing Bench, a benchmark that evaluates LLMs and other models on their ability to differentiate humans and AI in multi-turn text. The benchmark provides a collection of paired dialogue transcripts, wherein one dialogue is between two humans and the other is between a human and an AI. The task is to correctly identify which dialogue is human-only vs. human-AI. We evaluated a preliminary set of models against this benchmark, and found that GPTZero, Claude Opus-4.6, and GPT-5.5 achieve the highest accuracy: 89.41%, 77.92%, and 75.94% respectively. Our results suggest that statistical approaches to detection have semantic blind spots, but semantic approaches are susceptible to persona-prompting. Our work speaks to the Inverse Turing Test as a probe of LLM theory of mind, and motivates human-AI differentiation as a critical capability for AI systems. Our live benchmark can be found at https://huggingface.co/spaces/roc-hci/Inverse-Turing-Bench-Leaderboard (anonymity preserved).

"That's AI Slop, You Bot!" Studying Accusations, Evidence, and Credibility in Online Discourse Towards LLM-Generated Comments

Generative AI has made fluent prose cheap to produce, breaking the old promise to readers that good writing meant real thinking. How have readers responded, and what can this tell us about changing anti-AI attitudes? We analyzed 25 million comments from Hacker News and Reddit (2023-2026), combining LLM judgment on 7,500 sampled accusations of AI use, sentiment trajectories, speech-act coding of 300 confirmed accusations of AI use, and a matched-control test of accused versus non-accused parent comments. We found that the pejorative-label share of accusations rose more than tenfold on both platforms while a placebo vocabulary of pre-2022 inauthenticity terms (shill, astroturf) did not. This shift reflected a fast-growing trend of branding any suspicious or seemingly inauthentic prose as "AI slop". The slop frame now constitutes 94 percent of pejorative mentions, with the dominant comments shifting in tone from mockery toward gatekeeping and structural protest. The key surprise comes from a matched-control test which found that prose features that statistically distinguish AI from human text do not predict which human text gets accused as AI. The new accusations work as social gatekeeping of perceived authenticity without actually screening for AI. This research extends signaling theory by showing that substitute signals used socially can grow even when inaccurate if the underlying detection problem cannot be solved at the non-expert level. It shows that AI's effects on writing from the reader side are distinct from those on the production (writer) side. Detection technology cannot resolve this dynamic because the social function of accusations is increasingly to perform social gatekeeping and in-group signaling as opposed to identifying AI-generated writing.