You've probably been there. You’re reading a blog post, a LinkedIn update, or maybe even a legal brief, and that little voice in the back of your head starts whispering. It’s a nagging suspicion. You notice a certain rhythm—or lack thereof—and suddenly you're wondering: did ChatGPT write this? It’s the defining question of our current digital era. Honestly, it’s getting harder to answer.
Back in 2023, it was easy. AI had "tells." It loved lists. It obsessed over the word "delve." It sounded like a polite, slightly lobotomized corporate intern who had swallowed a dictionary but lost its soul. But we're in 2026 now. Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved. They’ve learned to mimic quirkiness. They can simulate "burstiness" and perplexity. Yet, they still leave digital fingerprints if you know where to look.
The obsession with detection
Why do we care so much? It’s about trust, mostly. When you realize a heartfelt "personal" essay was actually spat out by a server farm in Iowa in three seconds, the connection breaks. You feel cheated.
We see this everywhere. Teachers are scanning essays. Editors are scrutinizing freelancers. Even Google’s algorithms have shifted. While Google doesn't strictly "punish" AI content just for being AI, it absolutely hammers content that lacks "EEAT"—Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness. If a machine is just rehashing existing web data without adding a single new perspective or a "lived-in" anecdote, it’s going to sink in the search rankings. That’s the reality.
The "vibe check" vs. technical detection
There are two ways to figure out if you're looking at machine output. There's the technical side—software like GPTZero or Originality.ai—and then there's the human "vibe check."
Technical detectors look for two main things:
💡 You might also like: Apple TV 3rd Generation: What Most People Get Wrong
- Perplexity: This measures how "random" the word choice is. AI tends to choose the most statistically likely next word. Humans are weirder. We use slang incorrectly. We make up metaphors that barely work.
- Burstiness: This is the variation in sentence length and structure. AI often produces a steady, metered beat. It’s like a drum machine that never misses a hit. Human writing is more like a jazz drummer who occasionally drops a stick.
But let’s be real. Detectors are notorious for "false positives." If you write very clearly and concisely, a detector might flag you as a bot. It’s annoying. I’ve seen Pulitzer-winning articles get flagged as 90% AI because the prose was "too perfect." This is why the human eye is still the gold standard.
Signs that a human actually showed up
A human writer brings "the receipts." If I tell you about the time I tried to use an AI to write a recipe for sourdough and it told me to bake it at 1000 degrees, that’s a specific, weird detail. AI struggles with specific, un-verifiable personal history unless it's specifically prompted to lie—and even then, the lies feel... generic.
Look for "low-value" transitions. AI loves them. If you see "In conclusion," "It is important to remember," or "Furthermore," your "did ChatGPT write this" alarm should be ringing. Humans usually just move on to the next point. We’re lazy like that. We don't feel the need to wrap every paragraph in a neat little bow.
The hallucination trap
This is the big one. Fact-checking is the ultimate AI killer.
Back in the early days of GPT-4, the "hallucinations" were wild. It would invent court cases or cite books that didn't exist. Now, the errors are subtler. It might get a date wrong by a year, or attribute a quote to the wrong person who happened to be in the same room.
I remember a recent "think piece" about the 2024 elections. It looked great. It was polished. But it mentioned a specific policy shift that never actually made it past the committee stage. The AI had "read" the proposal in its training data and assumed it became law. A human expert would have known the bill died in a late-night session. That’s the difference between "processing information" and "understanding context."
The "Samey" Structure
Have you noticed how AI-generated articles often have exactly three bullet points per section? Or how every section is roughly the same length? It’s symmetrical. It’s balanced. It’s boring.
Real writing is messy. Sometimes I want to spend 500 words talking about one specific comma, and then cover the next three years of history in a single sentence. AI doesn't have "interest" levels. It treats every data point with the same level of importance. When you read something and feel like the author is actually excited about one specific part, you’re usually reading human work.
✨ Don't miss: Jackery Solar Generator 1000 Plus: What Most People Get Wrong
Can you actually bypass the detectors?
People try. Oh, they try.
There’s a whole industry of "AI humanizers." These tools take AI text and intentionally inject "human" errors. They swap words for synonyms. They mess with the syntax.
The irony? It usually makes the writing worse. It ends up sounding like a human who is having a stroke or someone who is trying way too hard to sound "street." It’s the "How do you do, fellow kids?" of the writing world.
If you're asking did ChatGPT write this about a piece of content that feels slightly "off"—like the grammar is fine but the logic is circular—you're likely looking at "humanized" AI. It’s the uncanny valley of text.
Real-world impact: Why it matters in 2026
In the business world, the stakes are higher than ever.
Companies that flooded their blogs with cheap AI content in 2024 and 2025 are now seeing their traffic fall off a cliff. Why? Because the internet became a "Dark Forest." There's so much noise that users have developed a sixth sense for "filler."
If a customer asks a question on your site and gets a generic AI response, they leave. They want to know that a person with actual skin in the game is answering. We're seeing a massive "flight to quality." People are subscribing to newsletters and Patreons because they want a specific human voice, not a refined average of the entire internet.
What about "Hybrid" writing?
We have to be honest: almost everyone uses AI now for something.
Maybe it helped brainstorm the outline. Maybe it suggested a better word for "frustrated." Does that mean the answer to "did ChatGPT write this" is yes?
Not necessarily. There’s a spectrum.
- Level 1: AI-generated, no editing. (Pure garbage)
- Level 2: AI-generated, human "fact-check." (Still feels robotic)
- Level 3: Human-led, AI-assisted research. (The new standard)
- Level 4: Pure human, zero AI. (Rare, artisanal, and usually expensive)
Most of what you read today is Level 3. The trick is making sure the human stays in the driver's seat. If the AI is the one coming up with the "thesis" or the "opinion," then the human is just a glorified editor.
Actionable ways to verify content
If you’re suspicious of a document, here’s a quick checklist that actually works in 2026:
1. Check the sourcing. Does the author link to primary sources, or just general Wikipedia-style facts? If they mention a "recent study" but don't name the university or the lead researcher, it’s a red flag. AI loves vague authority.
2. Look for "The Pivot." Humans are great at tangents. We might be talking about AI detection and suddenly mention a weird sandwich we ate while writing. AI stays on track. It’s "on-task" to a fault. If a piece of writing never deviates from the main topic for even a second, be suspicious.
3. Reverse search the "Unique" phrases.
Take a particularly flowery sentence and throw it into Google. Often, AI will generate the same "unique" metaphor for multiple people because it’s based on the same probability leaf. If you see that exact sentence on five other AI-looking sites, you have your answer.
4. Check for current events. Even with live browsing, AI often struggles to integrate "today's" news with deep historical context. It feels "tacked on." If the article talks about a news event from this morning but the rest of the piece feels like it could have been written in 2021, the AI likely just "bolted" the new info onto an old skeleton.
Moving forward in an AI-saturated world
We aren't going back. The "dead internet theory"—the idea that most of the web is just bots talking to bots—is closer to reality than we’d like to admit.
But there’s a silver lining. This era is making us better readers. We’re learning to value skepticism. We're looking for the "scars" in writing—the weird opinions, the unpopular takes, and the specialized knowledge that only comes from doing the work.
When you ask yourself did ChatGPT write this, you’re really asking "Is there a person on the other end who cares about what they’re saying?"
How to ensure your own work doesn't look like AI
If you're a writer worried about being flagged, the solution isn't to use "humanizer" tools. It’s to be more human.
- Use "I" and "Me". Share your actual experiences. If you're writing about gardening, talk about the time you accidentally killed your prize-winning tomatoes.
- Take a stand. AI is programmed to be neutral and "balanced." It hates taking controversial positions. If you have a strong, reasoned opinion, state it clearly.
- Vary your cadence. Read your work out loud. If it sounds like a steady drone, break it up. Short sentences. Long, flowing descriptions. Fragments.
- Be specific. Don't say "many people believe." Say "my neighbor Dave believes." Don't say "it's a global phenomenon." Say "it's huge in downtown Tokyo right now."
The future belongs to the authentic. The more the world is flooded with "perfect" machine text, the more we will crave the imperfect, gritty, and deeply weird output of the human mind. Stop trying to write "well" by a machine's standards. Write like yourself. That's the only AI-proof strategy left.