AI Content Detector
Pricing
$6.50 / 1,000 text analyzeds
AI Content Detector
Detect AI-generated text using statistical analysis. Analyzes perplexity, burstiness, vocabulary diversity, repetition patterns, and writing style. Returns confidence scores, classification (AI/human/mixed), and detailed signal breakdowns. Batch processing for multiple texts.
Pricing
$6.50 / 1,000 text analyzeds
Rating
0.0
(0)
Developer
junipr
Actor stats
0
Bookmarked
2
Total users
1
Monthly active users
2 days ago
Last modified
Categories
Share
Detect AI-generated text from modern LLMs using statistical analysis. Analyzes perplexity patterns, sentence burstiness, vocabulary diversity, repetition patterns, and stylistic uniformity — all running locally with zero external API calls.
Why Use This Actor
Existing AI detection tools require expensive subscriptions ($15+/month for GPTZero, Originality.ai) and send your text to external AI services. This actor uses proven statistical indicators running entirely on Apify's infrastructure.
| Feature | Ours | GPTZero | Originality.ai | Copyleaks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price per 1K texts | $6.50 | ~$10-15/sub | ~$15/sub | ~$10/sub |
| Batch processing | ✅ 100K+ | Limited | Limited | Yes |
| External API needed | None | Proprietary | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Speed | <10ms/text | ~500ms | ~500ms | ~500ms |
| Deterministic results | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Open methodology | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
Honest limitation: Statistical AI detection is not perfect. No detector achieves 100% accuracy. Short texts (<100 words), heavily edited AI text, and formal/technical writing may produce less accurate results. Use probability scores as signals, not verdicts.
How to Use
Zero-config: just provide an array of text strings.
{"texts": ["In today's rapidly evolving technological landscape, it is important to note that artificial intelligence has demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a wide variety of domains.","I can't believe how weird yesterday was. My dog somehow got into the kitchen and ate half a pizza while I was on a call. The whole thing was chaos."]}
With metadata and IDs:
{"texts": [{"id": "submission-456","text": "The article text to analyze...","metadata": { "author": "John Doe", "source": "blog" }}]}
Input Configuration
| Parameter | Type | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
texts | array | Demo texts | Plain strings or objects with text/id/metadata. Max: 100,000 |
analyzePerplexity | boolean | true | Word predictability analysis |
analyzeBurstiness | boolean | true | Sentence length variation |
analyzeVocabulary | boolean | true | Type-token ratio, vocabulary diversity |
analyzeRepetition | boolean | true | Filler phrases, transitional word density |
analyzeStyle | boolean | true | Paragraph uniformity, sentence starters |
paragraphLevel | boolean | true | Per-paragraph analysis for mixed content |
aiThreshold | number | 0.65 | AI classification threshold (0.50–0.95) |
includeSignalDetails | boolean | true | Full signal breakdown in output |
onlyAiDetected | boolean | false | Filter to AI-detected texts only |
Output Format
{"id": null,"classification": "ai_generated","aiProbability": 0.78,"humanProbability": 0.22,"confidence": 0.82,"wordCount": 245,"signals": {"burstiness": {"score": 0.71,"sentenceLengthVariance": 8.2,"sentenceLengthMean": 22.4,"interpretation": "Sentence lengths are suspiciously uniform — AI-like pattern","weight": 0.25},"repetition": {"score": 0.69,"fillerPhraseCount": 4,"transitionalWordDensity": 0.062,"interpretation": "High density of AI-characteristic phrases"}},"flaggedPatterns": [{"pattern": "uniform_sentence_length","description": "Sentences are unusually similar in length","severity": "strong"},{"pattern": "filler_phrase_density","description": "4 AI-typical filler phrases detected","severity": "moderate"}],"paragraphAnalysis": [{"paragraphIndex": 1,"aiProbability": 0.82,"classification": "ai_generated","dominantSignal": "repetition"}],"analyzedAt": "2026-03-11T12:00:00.000Z"}
Signal Score Interpretation
| Range | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0.0 – 0.3 | Strongly suggests human writing |
| 0.3 – 0.5 | Mildly suggests human writing |
| 0.5 – 0.7 | Uncertain |
| 0.7 – 1.0 | Strongly suggests AI writing |
Detection Signals
- Perplexity: AI text uses consistently "safe" word choices — high predictability, low variance
- Burstiness: Human text has highly variable sentence lengths; AI text is uniform
- Vocabulary: AI text often repeats vocabulary at higher rates (lower type-token ratio)
- Repetition: AI text overuses transitional words ("furthermore", "moreover") and filler phrases
- Style: AI text tends to have uniform paragraph lengths and repetitive sentence starters
Tips and Advanced Usage
- Paragraph-level analysis: Enable
paragraphLevel: trueto detect mixed content (human intro + AI body) - Adjusting threshold: Lower threshold (0.50) = more aggressive, higher false positive rate; Higher (0.85) = only flag clear AI text
- False positives: Formal academic and technical writing may score as AI-like — check
flaggedPatternsfor context - Batch audits: Use
onlyAiDetected: trueto filter a large content set to flagged items for manual review
Pricing
$6.50 per 1,000 texts analyzed (PPE — pay only for successfully analyzed texts)
Pricing includes all platform compute costs — no hidden fees.
| Use Case | Texts | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Student assignment check | 30 | $0.20 |
| Blog content audit | 500 | $3.25 |
| Monthly submission screening | 5,000 | $32.50 |
| Platform content moderation | 100,000 | $650.00 |
Texts below 50 characters and empty inputs are NOT billed.
FAQ
How accurate is this detector?
Statistical detection typically achieves 70-85% accuracy on unmodified AI text. Heavily edited AI text and formal human writing reduce accuracy. Always treat results as probability signals, not proof.
Can it identify which AI model wrote the text?
No — it detects AI-like statistical patterns, not model fingerprints. Outputs from modern LLMs tend to score similarly.
What's the minimum text length?
50 characters minimum. For reliable results, 200+ words recommended.
Does it work on non-English text?
Most signals work across languages (burstiness, vocabulary diversity). Filler phrase detection is English-only.
Is this suitable for academic integrity checking?
As one signal among many, yes. Do not use as sole evidence of misconduct — human review is always recommended.
How does it differ from GPTZero?
GPTZero uses a proprietary AI model (which itself has biases). This actor uses transparent, deterministic statistical methods — same input always produces same output, and you can understand exactly why a text was flagged.
Related actors by Junipr: Address Validator | Temporary Email Generator