Was hoping AiChecker would be the holy grail, but it’s really just part of the same wild west as the rest. Pros: It’s quick, simple, handles bulk text, and you don’t have to sign up or jump through hoops to get a result—great for a fast gut check. Cons: Give it anything remotely academic or technical, and you’ll get false positives up the wazoo. Good luck figuring out why; AiChecker tosses up a generic score and calls it a day—there’s zero transparency or actionable feedback to actually improve your text. That’s frustrating if you’re aiming for clarity.
Compared to what you’ll see from the reviewers above—who have their own gripes about inconsistency with other tools—AiChecker’s lack of detail is its real killer. Sometimes I’d actually prefer the hand-wringing over three varying detectors to blindly guessing where the issue is!
Look, if you’re submitting to professors, editors, or grant panels that actually care, you’d be wild to trust a single “AI” score. But, if you’re just spitballing emails or doing internal drafts, AiChecker’s not the worst for a basic vibe check. Just don’t expect perfection—and definitely don’t expect an explanation.
TL;DR Pros: fast, free, one-click. Cons: black box, false positives, not for the AI-anxious. There’s no shortcut: cross-check results, edit with your own judgment, and remember that any “AI Checker” (including AiChecker) is not gospel. Proceed with caution.