Is This AI– or Is It Not?

Using AI to detect AI lands us in a circle (or a ditch)

Kiki Sanders-Fritz, Print Editor-in-Chief • December 17, 2025

I know how to use an em dash— in fact, I love using em dashes. Unfortunately for me (and my English-privy peers), AI detectors do not like em dashes! Does this paragraph seem like AI to you? Well, maybe a little.

Okay, I’ll spoil it for you. That paragraph wasn’t written by AI. Neither are most of these paragraphs to come (view the end if you want to see what AI has to say about real essays). If you said that the first paragraph was AI, so did an AI detector. To be more exact, it was said to be 38 percent AI-written.

So, what does this mean for students and teachers? As AI becomes increasingly ubiquitous, we’re running into a growing dilemma. Artificial intelligence feeds off of what it is taught by humans, whether directly or indirectly. Whenever someone places a sample of writing into an AI detector (which uses AI software), it is learning more and more about language conventions, emotion in writing, and figurative language. At some point, artificial intelligence will have learned so much about common English writing that it will (or already has, if you ask me) simply represent human writing.

Think of it like being in English class. In pre-k, you learn phonics and spelling. In second grade, you learn the difference between the ‘theres’ and the ‘yours’ with a sprinkle of the parts of speech. You keep building onto this as you inch toward middle school, and your teachers are starting to ease you into the norm of writing essays and paragraphs. Then, you get to middle school and must learn theme, sophistication, and tone. In high school, you’ll refresh and build upon all of these skills, and they’ll start to come together until you are a solid, distinctive writer.

AI does the same.

We’ll just skip ahead now and (roughly) equate AI and the strong high schooler or college writer. Some teachers have thresholds for the percentage of AI detected that they chalk up to simple error. Others have a zero-tolerance policy. When it comes to AI detectors, cogent writers who adore intentional, structured patterns and adding variety to their punctuation are inherently facing the brunt of AI’s punishment. AI sets off an alarm for writing it analyzes as being too sophisticated; thus, eloquent authors may have to face the constant accusation of using AI, or they may lessen the quality of their work to avoid such conflicts.

I’m not calling for the abolition of AI detection platforms. I still hate artificial intelligence in education (and for most things, honestly), but it’s worthwhile to invest in other systems to sniff out AI in writing. Instead of copying and pasting work or running it through an analysis software, timing and previous writing samples should be used as a baseline for comparison.

AI Detection on Different Authors

Prompt given to students

In a 2016 interview published in the Los Angeles Review of Books, Maxine Hong Kingston, an award-winning writer famous for her novels depicting the experiences of Chinese immigrants in the United States, stated: "I think that individual voices are not as strong as a community of voices. If we can make a community of voices, then we can speak more truth." Write an essay that argues your position on the extent to which Kingston's claim about the importance of creating a community of voices is valid. In your response, you should do the following: respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position, provide evidence to support your line of reasoning, explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning. Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.

ZeroGPT’s analysis of a human-written essay. No AI was used in this, yet AI detectors believe that nearly 72% of the writing is AI. (Kiki Sanders-Fritz)

Human response to prompt

When individuals unite under a shared purpose, their combined voice gains the power to challenge entrenched systems and achieve real reform. The Montgomery bus boycott, which lasted 318 days, was only possible through collective action. While it was Rosa Parks’ leadership that sparked the protest, it only succeeded because the entire Black community acted together. Hundreds of civilians sacrificed comfort—walking miles to work and carpooling in the fluctuating weather and harsh conditions—refusing to support infrastructure that upheld segregation. Their unity impacted the city through its economy the hardest. Bus companies saw an exponential decrease in revenue, causing a national spotlight surrounding the boycott to pressure elected officials to advocate for change and rule against segregation on public transit. The Montgomery bus boycott further showcases that when many voices speak as one, even the most rigid systems of injustice can collapse. Their victory didn’t come from an individual act of courage, but months of shared perseverance, ultimately underlining that a community of voices enforces change.

Writers.com’s AI detector analysis of an essay written by ChatGPT. 85% of the essay was determined to be non-human. (Kiki Sanders-Fritz)

AI response

**Written by ChatGPT. It was given the same instructions as students, except it was asked to make its response sound as human as possible.

In her 2016 interview with the Los Angeles Review of Books, Maxine Hong Kingston argues that a “community of voices” can speak “more truth” than any single individual. Her claim highlights a tension that appears throughout history and literature: the power of personal testimony versus the collective strength of shared narratives. While individual voices can be uniquely insightful, Kingston’s assertion is largely valid because communities generate broader, more representative truths, challenge dominant narratives more effectively, and create the solidarity necessary for meaningful social change.

To begin with, communities of voices offer a more complete and representative understanding of an issue than any single perspective can. Individual experiences are, by nature, limited by personal background, identity, and circumstance. For instance, the Civil Rights Movement was strengthened not by one person’s testimony but by a chorus of voices—from Rosa Parks to student activists to ordinary citizens—whose collective experiences revealed the pervasive injustice of segregation. No individual, no matter how eloquent, could have captured the full scope of discrimination that millions faced; only a community of voices could reveal that truth. This supports Kingston’s claim that truth becomes clearer when many people contribute their experiences, creating a fuller picture of reality.

Additionally, communities are better equipped to challenge entrenched power structures that often silence isolated voices. In literature, Kingston herself demonstrates this dynamic. The Woman Warrior, for example, blends stories from various Chinese American women—myths, memories, and lived experiences—into a collective portrait of immigrant womanhood. The power of the book comes not from a single narrative but from the accumulated weight of many. A solitary voice, especially one from a marginalized background, can be dismissed as anecdotal. But when such voices come together, they become harder to ignore. This illustrates how communities amplify voices that might otherwise be unheard or undervalued, strengthening the truth they strive to communicate.

Moreover, a community of voices fosters solidarity, which is essential for turning truth into action. Social change rarely arises from individual conviction alone. Movements such as #MeToo show how collective storytelling can expose systemic issues—in this case, widespread sexual harassment and assault—far more effectively than any single victim could have done. The movement’s power came from the sheer number of people publicly sharing experiences that had long been suppressed. That collective courage not only revealed the depth of the problem but also compelled institutions to respond. In this sense, Kingston’s idea holds true: community transforms isolated truths into a force capable of reshaping society.

However, acknowledging the strength of collective voices does not mean dismissing the importance of individual ones. Change often begins with a single person speaking up. Yet Kingston’s claim does not deny this; rather, it emphasizes that individual voices become stronger when they join with others. A community is not a replacement for the individual but an expansion of what the individual can achieve.

In light of these considerations, Kingston’s assertion that a community of voices can “speak more truth” than an individual voice is largely valid. While individual perspectives matter, they achieve greater clarity, influence, and impact when combined with others. Communities do not dilute truth—they deepen it. Through shared experience, mutual support, and collective power, a community of voices can illuminate realities that no single voice could fully capture.

This segment was determined to be only 13% AI, despite being entirely written by artificial intelligence generator. The essay was put in ZeroGPT’s checker. (Kiki Sanders-Fritz)

A humanized version of the essay written by AI

**The previous essay written by ChatGPT was ran through a humanizer (decopy.ai).

Maxine Hong Kingston said in a 2016 interview that a community of voices tells more truth than one person can. What she says brings up something you see a lot: is personal stories stronger, or are stories told together by many? Sure, one person’s view can be really sharp. But Kingston’s probably right because when people come together, they show bigger truths, question the usual stories in a better way, and make the teamwork you need to change stuff for real.

First off, when lots of voices join in, you get a fuller view than just one person could give you. What one person sees is always going to be limited by who they are, where they come from, and what they’ve been through. Look at the Civil Rights Movement. It wasn’t just Rosa Parks; it was tons of folks – students, regular people – all shouting about how wrong segregation was. No single person could have told you everything about how bad things were for millions. It took everyone speaking up to show what was really going on. So Kingston’s got a point: the truth gets clearer when everyone throws in their piece.

Also, groups can fight back against those in charge way better than someone on their own. Kingston shows you how it works in her book, The Woman Warrior. She puts together tales from lots of Chinese American women – myths, memories, real-life stuff – and paints a group picture of what it’s like being an immigrant woman. The book hits hard not ‘cause of one story, but ‘cause of all of them piled together. One voice, ‘specially if it’s someone who doesn’t usually get heard, can be brushed off as just one weird case. But when those voices shout together, people listen up. That's how communities make quiet voices louder, making the truth they're trying to tell stronger.

And get this: when people speak together, it makes them stand together, which is key to turning words into action. You can't change much with just one person shouting. Look at #MeToo. When everyone told their stories together, it showed just how much went on – all the harassment and abuse that no one talked about for ages. It wasn’t just one person; it was tons, all saying what happened to them. It took guts, and it showed everyone how big the problem was. That made the big guys do something. So Kingston’s idea rings true: when people come together, their stories can shake things up.

Now, just ‘cause group voices are strong doesn’t mean one person’s voice doesn’t matter. Sometimes, it just takes one person to start things off. Kingston knows this. She’s just saying that when people join together, their voices get even stronger. The group doesn’t replace the person; it makes what that person can do even bigger.

So, yeah, Kingston’s right that a community of voices can tell more truth than one person. One person’s view matters, but it gets way better when it’s mixed with others. Communities don’t water down the truth; they make it stronger. When people share stories, back each other up, and join forces, they can shine a light on stuff that one voice could never show.

Artificial Intelligence

Donate to FHCtoday.com

$245

$1500

Contributed

Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Francis Howell Central High School. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs. FHCToday.com and our subsequent publications are dedicated to the students by the students. We hope you consider donating to allow us to continue our mission of a connected and well-informed student body.