The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. 06 November 2023 ‘ChatGPT detector’ catches AI-generated papers with unprecedented accuracy Tool based on machine learning uses features of writing style to distinguish between human and AI. Abstract In recent years, there has been a rapid proliferation of AI-generated text, primarily driven by the release of powerful pre-trained language models (PLMs). To address the issue of misuse associated with AI-generated text, various high-performing detectors have been developed, including the OpenAI detector and the Stanford DetectGPT. The researchers conclude that the available detection tools are neither accurate nor reliable and have a main bias towards classifying the output as human-written rather than detecting AI-generated text. Furthermore, content obfuscation techniques significantly worsen the performance of tools. The study makes several significant contributions. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings. Recent advances in generative pre-trained transformer large language models have emphasised the potential risks of unfair use of artificial intelligence (AI) generated content in an academic environment and intensified efforts in searching for solutions to detect such content. The paper examines the general functionality of detection tools for AI-generated text and evaluates them based on. Specifically, the study seeks to answer research questions about whether existing detection tools can reliably differentiate between human-written text and ChatGPT-generated text, and whether machine translation and content obfuscation techniques affect the detection of AI-generated text. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the implications and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI-generated text in academic settings. Thus, from an AI-generated text, we wanted to: (1) evaluate the AI detection sites on a text generated entirely by the AI, (2) test the methods described for evading AI detection, and (3) evaluate the effectiveness of these methods to evade AI detection on the sites tested previously. Second, it presents the result of one of the most comprehensive tests conducted so far, based on a rigorous research methodology, an original document set, and a broad coverage of tools. Third, it discusses the impli‐ cations and drawbacks of using detection tools for AI‐generated text in academic settings.