I'm looking at originality.ai and I'm suspicious. Their roundup of studies is largely ones from 2023 (and I don't think any AI detectors from 2023 actually work

I'm looking at originality.ai and I'm suspicious. Their roundup of studies is largely ones from 2023 (and I don't think any AI detectors from 2023 actually worked), with a few newer ones that nonetheless don't include Pangram among the detectors that they're comparing (which I consider highly suspicious and possible evidence of cherry-picking). A quick internet search surfaces various anecdotes suggesting that originality.ai has a high rate of false positives compared to other detectors (and in particular doesn't highly prioritize making false positives rare). I'm open to the idea of different norms for citing AI detectors, but someone needs to propose what they should be and they need to make sense.