AI-Generated Text Detection: QuillBot vs Sapling

Results of a face-off between QuillBot AI Detector and Sapling AI Detector at the AI-Generated Text Detection Trial.

Accuracy: QuillBot ≫ Sapling

• QuillBot overall is much more accurate.
• Sapling tends to identify 1 in 4 human-generated content as AI-generated. False Positive Rate is 5 times higher than QuillBot.
• QuillBot is 3 times less likely to mislabel AI-generated content as human-generated.
• Full metrics breakdown:
  • F1-score: 68.66% (QuillBot) vs 67.20% (Sapling)
  • Accuracy: 95.56% (QuillBot) vs 82.02% (Sapling)
  • False Positive Rate: 4.76% (QuillBot) vs 24.39% (Sapling)
  • False Negative Rate: 4.17% (QuillBot) vs 12.50% (Sapling)

Robustness: QuillBot ≫ Sapling

• QuillBot performs consistently across all categories, from social media posts to technical and academic writing.
• Sapling consistently underperforms in detecting AI in academic writing, technical writing, and social media posts.
• Both tools work equally well in detecting AI in casual writing and product descriptions.

Explainability: QuillBot ≳ Sapling

• Both tools highlight content that is likely AI-generated
• QuillBot provides a refined identification according to the level of AI involvement: AI-generated, AI-generated & AI-refined, Human-written & AI-refined, or Human-written
• Sapling highlights and color-codes each sentence according to the likelihood of being AI-generated.

Conclusion: QuillBot AI Detector ≫ Sapling AI Detector

Both tools can identify AI-generated content with QuillBot having a clear edge over accuracy and robustness, making it the tool to go across domains. Sapling does well at identifying AI content in casual writing, making it a good tool for sniffing AI in general non-specialized content. When it comes to explainability, both tools highlight suspected AI-generated areas, but QuillBot takes it a step further with a gradation of AI involvement. Overall, we declare QuillBot AI Detection as the prevailing AI in this face-off.