Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in student assessment has led to institutional reliance on detection tools. Unlike plagiarism detection, AI detection relies on unverifiable probabilistic estimates. In this paper, we argue that generative AI detection should not be used in education due to its methodological imperfections, violation of procedural fairness, and unverifiable outputs. Generative AI detectors cannot be tested in real-world conditions where the true origin of a text is unknown. Attempts to validate results through linguistic markers, multiple tools, or comparisons with past work introduce confirmation bias rather than independent verification. Moreover, categorising text as human- or AI-generated imposes a false dichotomy that ignores work created with, not by, AI. Generative AI detection also raises security concerns. Academic integrity investigations must rely on evidence meeting the balance of probabilities standard, which generative AI detection scores do not satisfy.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Published
2026-01-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2026.2622146
Primary Topic
Online Learning and Analytics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education

Colin E. Webber, Hannah Bornsztejn, Wayne Bradshaw, Kane Murdoch et al.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Online Learning and Analytics
article

Heads we win, tails you lose: AI detectors in education

Colin E. Webber, Hannah Bornsztejn, Wayne Bradshaw, Kane Murdoch, Bridget Pearce, Alyce Hogg, Mark Andrew Bassett
article en

Abstract

The increasing use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in student assessment has led to institutional reliance on detection tools. Unlike plagiarism detection, AI detection relies on unverifiable probabilistic estimates. In this paper, we argue that generative AI detection should not be used in education due to its methodological imperfections, violation of procedural fairness, and unverifiable outputs. Generative AI detectors cannot be tested in real-world conditions where the true origin of a text is unknown. Attempts to validate results through linguistic markers, multiple tools, or comparisons with past work introduce confirmation bias rather than independent verification. Moreover, categorising text as human- or AI-generated imposes a false dichotomy that ignores work created with, not by, AI. Generative AI detection also raises security concerns. Academic integrity investigations must rely on evidence meeting the balance of probabilities standard, which generative AI detection scores do not satisfy.

Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
Charles Sturt University (AU), MIT University (MK), Systématique, adaptation, évolution (FR), Grammar School (SK), RMIT University (AU), James Cook University (AU), Macquarie University (AU)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Online Learning and Analytics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.