Debunking AI Text “Humanizers”: Why Toolsmart and Popular Detectors Failed My Test
The AI Detector Lie: My Experiment with Gemini, Toolsmart, and the 81% Robot Human
An honest experiment involving Gemini, Toolsmart, and four major AI detectors to find out if your "humanized" content is actually safe
I've learned about a new AI that promises to transform any AI-written text into human-written text. Since I don’t take advertising at its word, I decided to conduct a small experiment involving six AIs. In an era where content authenticity is everything, many creators are turning to AI humanizers to bypass filters, but is the technology actually ready?
Experiment
First, I ask Gemini to write an article in which horoscopes for tomorrow will be written for all zodiac signs. Gemini wrote me a text in a couple of seconds, which I will test now.
 |
Generating the base text with Gemini AI |
Next, I copied this text and sent it to Toolsmart AI to transform into human language. It transforms in a split second.
 |
| Using Toolsmart to "humanize" the AI content |
In addition to translation, this AI tool can do a lot of other things, promising a full text transformation.
 |
Exploring additional features of the Toolsmart platform |
After the text became human, I found the most popular AI text detectors on Google. I started with the first one, in order. The results were very surprising.
 |
| Preparing for the multi-detector comparison |
This performance test shows exactly how these algorithms see our writing.
Gptzero
The first AI detector was gptzero.me. It gave such results for the Gemini text:
 |
| GPTZero accurately flagging 100% AI content |
100% AI-generated. I agree. Gptzero identified it correctly.
Next, I send the text, rewritten by the Toolsmart text humanizer, for review.
 |
| The "humanized" text still failing the GPTZero check |
It also says that the text is 100% written by AI. Ok. The first AI detector shows that Toolsmart is not working.
 |
| Human-written text correctly identified by GPTZero |
But to be fair, I decided to check the text that I wrote myself. What will the detector say? The detector says that what I wrote was written by a human. Good.
ZeroGPT
I’m checking the text written first, just like last time, Gemini.
 |
| ZeroGPT analysis of the raw AI output |
ZeroGPT was ahead in that the text was written by AI, not 100%, but 98.04% hmm, a small inaccuracy. We know that it is 100%, since I copied it directly from the AI.
Next, I add the text from the humanizer:
 |
| Checking the "humanized" version on ZeroGPT |
ZeroGPT is again not quite sure, and instead of 100% it only determined 99.2%. I wonder what it will say about text written entirely by a human?
 |
| The shocking 18.02% AI score for real human writing |
Honestly, I’m surprised. ZeroGpt defined what I wrote as 18.02% written by AI. I never thought that I would retell my story in the language of a robot. It’s a bit offensive.
ZeroGpt, although it determined that the text written by the Toolsmart service was most likely AI, also called human text a robot. Completely inaccurate AI. Paranoid, everything seems artificial to it.
Justdone
The next AI that will take part in the check is Justdone. So, according to tradition, I will check the text created by Gemini first.
 |
| Justdone showing an inaccurate 70% score |
It identified this text as written by a robot only by 70%. It works either unfairly or inaccurately. Because it immediately offers me the use of its built-in humanizer.
If it can’t cope with determining the percentage of someone else’s text written by a robot, then how well does it rework texts? I doubt that it copes with this task. Now we check the text created by the humanizer.
 |
| The humanizer actually making the text look more like AI |
According to Justdone, the text, after using the Toolsmart humanizer, became more robotic; instead of 70%, it became 83%.
I wonder if it can handle human text?
 |
| Human text incorrectly flagged as 81% robot by Justdone |
Seriously? 81% written by a robot? I’m 81% robot…
 |
GIF of a surprised dog
I got the impression that this detector randomly inserts numbers so that people buy a subscription and use their humanizer. Since my text for it is more robotic than the text written by Gemini.
Scribbr
And we check the latest AI detector — Scribbr. I added the text prepared by Gemini.
 |
| Scribbr failing to detect obvious AI content |
He thinks that only 33% is written by a robot — incorrectly.
Now I’m adding the text written by the humanizer:
 |
| Humanizer text getting a false "pass" from Scribbr |
Scribbr doesn’t want to label AI, unlike the previous detector, and says that there are almost no AI words in the text, only 13%. Wrong again. I check my text:
 |
| Human text correctly identified by Scribbr |
Here, the service coped and did not find any traces of AI in my text, but it also almost did not find them in texts written by robots. This service is also not objective.
Results
As a result, the ratings were distributed.
This table was created using Gemini.ai. The first AI detector turned out to be the most accurate. Although the essence of the experiment wasn’t to determine the best AI detector, but to see if the Toolsmart humanizer works. In my opinion, it doesn’t, because each of the detectors determined that the text was written by a robot.
If there are any humanizers of the test that really cope with this task, I haven’t met them yet. Perhaps they just haven’t been made yet, but progress doesn’t stand still.
In addition to this, you can now also see which detectors lie and how much.
My experiment showed that Toolsmart doesn’t fulfill its main task, and many detectors give inaccurate or even confusing results.
This tendency to prioritize the appearance of quality over genuine substance is not limited to the world of artificial intelligence; it has permeated our entire material culture. Just as we struggle to find authenticity in machine-generated text, we are increasingly surrounding ourselves with mass-produced objects that offer a hollow sense of satisfaction. In a society driven by fleeting trends, we must ask ourselves what we are truly investing in when we follow the crowd. To explore the intersection of modern collecting and environmental responsibility, you should read my next cultural critique:
Insider Tip: if you are serious about content creation and want to avoid the "robot" look, don't rely on humanizers. Investing in a mechanical keyboard designed for long-form typing can help you get into the flow of writing your own original thoughts more easily. Good hardware is the best "Plan B" to keep your human voice authentic!
While I’m testing whether I’m 81% robot or just a very productive human, I’m also building a shop full of things that look just as good. I’m not only using AI to turn my chaotic thoughts into clean diagrams, but also building a shop full of things that look just as good. Maybe you’ll find something useful for your next big project or just something beautiful to brighten your day? 🦝
Have you tried any humanizers to bypass AI filters? How well do they do their job in your experience, or are we all just "81% robot" now? Share your results in the comments!
Comments
Post a Comment