How to avoid AI detection
By Sourabh Singh18 September 20266 min read

What actually moves the number, what does not, and the question worth asking instead.
People arrive at this question from two very different places. Some used AI and want to hide it. Others wrote their own work, got flagged, and want to stop being accused. The techniques overlap; the ethics do not.
What actually lowers a score
- Vary sentence length deliberately. Follow a long sentence with a short one. This raises burstiness, the single biggest lever.
- Add concrete specifics, names, numbers, dates, examples. Specificity raises perplexity in a way a thesaurus never will.
- Cut stock transitions and dead phrases: moreover, furthermore, it is important to note, in today's fast-paced world.
- Vary how sentences open. Three consecutive sentences starting the same way is a strong marker.
- Keep your own voice: contractions, asides, the punctuation you actually use.
What does not work
- Synonym swapping. It is what early humanizers did and what detectors were retrained to catch.
- Unicode tricks and invisible characters. Detected trivially, and treated as deliberate deception rather than a stylistic matter.
- Running text through three humanizers. Output degrades faster than the score falls.
- Any tool promising a guaranteed bypass rate. Nobody can guarantee that against systems they do not control.
Notice what the working list is
Vary rhythm, add specifics, cut dead phrasing, keep your voice. That is not evasion advice, it is the standard advice in every book on writing ever published. The techniques that survive detector updates are the ones that genuinely improve the prose, because they change the text rather than disguising it.
The better question
Not how do I avoid detection, but which of my habits make my writing read as machine-generated. That question has a fixable answer, and fixing it helps whether or not anyone is running a detector.
Find out which habits are firing in your draft.
See your flagsCommon questions
Edit for rhythm and specifics. Vary sentence length, add names, numbers, dates and examples, cut stock transitions like moreover and furthermore, vary how sentences open and keep your own voice.
No. It is what early humanizers did, and detectors were retrained to catch it. Running text through several humanizers also degrades the output faster than the score falls.
No. Nobody can guarantee a bypass rate against systems they do not control, so any tool promising one should be treated with suspicion.
No. They are detected trivially and treated as deliberate deception rather than a stylistic matter. The techniques that survive detector updates are the ones that genuinely improve the prose.


