Do AI detectors work?
They are unreliable, especially on rewritten text. A false positive on a tight editor helps nobody. Palan judges on readability and source, not on a score. Chasing only the detector optimises the wrong thing.
InsightsAI content
You recognise AI content by vague openings, symmetrical lists, claims with no source, and sentences nobody would say out loud.
Stopping it is not a detector. It is a brief, your own examples, and an edit that takes the generator rhythm out.
In a world where… Here's the thing. It is important to emphasise. The same point three times in different words. No names, no numbers you can check.
Palan reads out loud. If nobody in the room talks like that, it goes back. Detectors are a side issue. People and AI systems stumble on the same hollow passages.
Put the question in the first sentences. Add one observation or example that is yours. Ban stock openings in the brief. Cut what fails the check.
Tools that make text 'more human' often paste on extra adjectives. That is makeup. Palan rewrites or drops it.
You stop the AI sound by being specific: a real question, a source, a rhythm you can say out loud. Palan puts that requirement in the production flow, not in a detector afterwards. Detection is not the goal. Readability and the brand are. Those two coincide.
They are unreliable, especially on rewritten text. A false positive on a tight editor helps nobody. Palan judges on readability and source, not on a score. Chasing only the detector optimises the wrong thing.
Google says it rewards useful content, however it was made. Hollow text fails whether a model or an intern wrote it. Palan writes as if a person and an Overview both have to be able to cite the block.
Yes. That is the way of working. The check is not optional and it is not a quick scan. Palan treats AI drafts like a junior: usable after editing, not live off the pile.
Contact