Artturi Jalli

Posted on Jun 30 • Edited on Jul 27

5+ Best AI Humanizers of 2025

#ai

I tried the best AI humanizers to save your time and money.

In this post, I will show you my results after running these tools through extensive tests and AI detectors.

Find the complete list of the best AI humanizers here.

Let’s start!

Quick Summary

Here's a short recap of the best tools based on my findings.

🥇 1. ChatGPT

ChatGPT is the most accurate AI humanizer based on my tests and research.

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Score: ChatGPT got an average score of 72.06% human in my tests.
Highlights: It totally fooled Originality AI and QuillBot AI detectors. Even Undetectable.ai had trouble with it.

Just notice that the sample size is small, and the gap to the next tool wasn’t big.

🥈 2. Walter Writes AI

The second-best humanizer is Walter Writes AI.

Walter Writes AI human scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	7%	100%	100%	49%
Casual Blog	83%	100%	100%	50%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	36%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	99%
Total Average	22.5%	100%	100%	58.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 70.31%

Score: Walter Writes AI got a 70.31% average human score on my tests.
Highlights: It totally fooled Originality AI and QuillBot AI detectors. Even Winston AI had trouble with it.

🥉 3. Grubby AI

The third-best AI humanizer is Grubby AI.

Grubby AI Human Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	100%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	1%	99%	100%	20%
Creative Writing	9%	94%	100%	40%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	22%	99%
Total Average	3%	98.25%	80.5%	64.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 61.65%

Score: This tool got a 61.65% average human score on my tests.
Highlights: It completely fooled Originality AI and mostly fooled QuillBot.

That’s the top 3.

If you’re in a hurry, I hope you liked it. But if you have some spare time, feel free to stick around.

Towards the end, I will discuss the truth about AI detection/humanization. I will create a killer prompt for humanizing with ChatGPT and more.

Let’s go!

How I Evaluated the AI Content Detectors

To start, I created four AI-generated text samples. I then tested them using several popular AI detection tools (listed below).

Ideally, a perfect AI detector would assign a 0% human score, indicating the content is entirely AI-produced. Of course, no detector is flawless, so the results weren’t exactly zero, but most were close.

Here are the human scores reported for my four AI-generated samples:

AI-generated content samples' human scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	0%	0%	10%
Casual Blog	0%	0%	0%	33%
Creative Writing	0%	0%	0%	33%
Technical Expl.	1%	1%	0%	31%
Overall Average	0.5%	0.25%	0%	26.75%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 6.88%

The average human score was 6.88%.

In other words, the detectors judged that about 6.88% of the text appeared human-written, while 93.12% was identified as AI-generated.

This 6.88% baseline will serve as our reference point to compare the tools.

If a score is much higher than 6.88%, it suggests that the AI humanization process had some effect.

For an AI humanizer to be considered successful, the score should ideally approach 100%.

With that reference in place, here are the results of running the same samples through AI humanizers and then scanning them again with detectors.

1. ChatGPT

ChatGPT needs no lengthy introduction, so we’ll skip straight to the details.

The Results

To test how well ChatGPT can humanize AI content, I followed this process:

Generated four AI-written text samples.
Rewrote each sample using ChatGPT.
Ran the rewritten text through the AI detectors.
Recorded all scores.

Below is what the most popular detectors reported:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

In the table:

0% = Fully AI-generated
100% = Fully human-written

Summary of Findings:

Winston AI still detected the text as mainly AI.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was also fully deceived.
Undetectable.ai remained partially unconvinced.

On average, the human score increased to 72.06%.

This is a substantial improvement over the 6.88% baseline.

Still, this result is less than ideal. Ideally, you’d expect the score to be near 99% or higher.

Overall, ChatGPT produced text that was a little more than halfway human-like—far from perfect, but among the better options.

Pricing

ChatGPT is available free of charge within certain usage limits. If you only use it for content humanization, you might not need to pay.

Here’s a quick overview of the pricing tiers:

Free — $0/month

Access to GPT-4.1 mini
Limited access to GPT-4o, OpenAI o4-mini, and advanced research tools
Restrictions on file uploads, data analysis, image generation, and voice mode
Code editing in the ChatGPT macOS desktop app
Ability to use custom GPTs
Web browsing enabled

Plus — $20/month

All Free features
Higher limits for messages, uploads, analysis, and image creation
Enhanced voice mode with video and screensharing
Access to GPT-4.5 preview, GPT-4.1, and additional reasoning models
Use of OpenAI o3, o4-mini, and o4-mini-high
Create and manage custom GPTs, projects, and workflows
Early access to new features

Pro — $200/month

All Plus features
Unlimited access to all reasoning models, including GPT-4o
Unlimited advanced voice, video, and screensharing
Access to OpenAI o3-pro with increased compute power
Extended deep research capabilities
Sora video generation access
Previews of Operator and Codex agents

2. Walter Writes AI

Walter Writes AI is a tool designed to make AI-generated text sound more human.

It’s simple to use: sign up, paste your AI text, and click “Humanize.”

The platform will produce a rewritten version intended to appear more human-like.

But does it actually work? Can it consistently fool AI detectors? Let’s find out.

The Results

To evaluate Walter Writes AI, I followed this process:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Humanized each sample with Walter AI.
Ran the humanized texts through AI detectors.
Collected and averaged the scores.

Here are the results reported by the most popular detectors:

Walter Writes AI human scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	7%	100%	100%	49%
Casual Blog	83%	100%	100%	50%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	36%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	99%
Total Average	22.5%	100%	100%	58.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 70.31%

In this context:

0% = Fully AI-generated
100% = Fully human-written

Observations:

Winston AI still detected the content as mainly AI.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was also fully deceived.
Undetectable.ai remained partially skeptical.

When averaging the human scores, the result was 70.31%.

This is significantly higher than the 6.88% baseline with no humanization.

However, this performance is still disappointing.

Essentially, the tool only successfully humanized the text about 70% of the time—far too unreliable.

Ideally, the score should fall between 99.5% and 100% to justify using it, but here it’s just 70%.

Walter Writes AI vs. ChatGPT

Given Walter Writes AI’s underwhelming results, I decided to see how ChatGPT would perform in comparison.

I repeated the same process: humanized the same four text samples using ChatGPT, then tested them with AI detectors.

Here were the outcomes:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI again detected the content as mainly AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was fully deceived.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

The average human score came out to 72.06%.

For reference, Walter AI achieved only 70.31%.

In short, ChatGPT did a slightly better job at making AI content appear human-written.

Even better, ChatGPT is free to use.

By contrast, Walter Writes AI offers only 300 free words of humanization.

Bottom line: I’d pick ChatGPT over Walter Writes AI.

Pricing

Starter — €6/month (10,000 words)

Up to 500 words per request
Designed to bypass AI detectors
Generates human-like, plagiarism-free text
Built-in AI detection tool
Supports 20+ languages and watermark removal

Pro — €10/month (55,000 words)

Up to 1,200 words per request
All Starter features included
Higher word limits for better value

Unlimited — €25/month (Unlimited words)

Up to 1,700 words per request
All Pro features
No word limit—ideal for heavy users

3. Grubby AI

Grubby AI is a humanizer designed to make AI-generated content appear more human.

The tool allows you to upload PDFs, paste text, or try example content if you just want to experiment.

To use it, sign up, enter your AI text, and click “Humanize.”

It will generate a version intended to look more human-written.

But does it actually work? Here are my results.

The Results

To test Grubby AI, I followed this process:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Processed each sample with Grubby AI.
Ran the results through AI detectors.
Collected and averaged the scores.

Here’s what the most popular detectors reported:

Grubby AI Human Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	100%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	1%	99%	100%	20%
Creative Writing	9%	94%	100%	40%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	22%	99%
Total Average	3%	98.25%	80.5%	64.5%

Average score on all AI detectors: 61.65%

In this table:

0% = Fully AI-generated
100% = Fully human-written

Findings:

Winston AI was not fooled at all.
Originality AI was completely deceived.
QuillBot was mostly convinced.
Undetectable.ai remained skeptical.

On average, the human score came out to 61.56%.

This is far above the 6.88% baseline without humanization.

Still, 61.56% is extremely low. It means Grubby AI failed nearly half the time to make text look human.

Ideally, you’d want a score between 99.5% and 100%, not just over 60%.

On top of that, the free plan is very limited: you can only humanize one short piece before being prompted to pay.

Bottom line: Grubby AI doesn’t work well.

Grubby AI vs. ChatGPT

Since Grubby AI performed poorly, I wanted to see how ChatGPT compared.

I repeated the exact same steps but used ChatGPT to humanize the samples.

Then I tested the results with the same detectors.

Here’s what I found:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI still recognized most of the text as AI-generated.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly convinced.

The average human score was 72.06%.

Compare this to Grubby AI’s 61.56%.

Clearly, ChatGPT did a far better job at making content look human.

Plus, ChatGPT is free and allows unlimited usage.

In short: I’d use ChatGPT over Grubby AI every time.

Pricing

Free — $0/month (300 words/month)

Up to 300 words per input
Simple Mode only
Bypasses AI detectors
Human-like, error-free text
Plagiarism-free rewrites
No credit card required

Essential — $3.99/month (7,500 words)

Up to 500 words per input
All Free features included
Same tools, more usage

Pro — $8.99/month (30,000 words)

Up to 1,500 words per input
Adds Standard and Enhanced Modes
Most popular plan

Unlimited — $14.00/month (Unlimited words)

Up to 2,500 words per input
All modes unlocked
Best for frequent use

4. GPTHuman

GPTHuman is another AI humanizer that rephrases AI-generated text to sound more natural.

It’s straightforward to use: sign up, choose “Humanizer” on the dashboard, paste your text on the left, and click “Humanize.” The humanized version appears on the right.

But does it fool detectors? Here are my results.

The Results

To evaluate GPTHuman, I followed this process:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Humanized each sample with GPTHuman.
Ran the rewritten text through AI detectors.
Averaged the scores.

Here’s what the most popular detectors reported:

GPTHuman AI detector scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	6%	100%	100%	31%
Casual Blog	3%	100%	100%	40%
Creative Writing	0%	98%	100%	33%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	100%	50%
Overall Average	2.88%	99.5%	100%	38.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 60.72%

In this table:

0% = Fully AI-generated
100% = Fully human-written

Findings:

Winston AI still flagged the content as AI.
Originality AI was completely fooled.
QuillBot was also fooled.
Undetectable.ai was not fully convinced.

The average human score came to 60.72%.

While this is much higher than the 6.88% baseline, it’s still poor.

A score around 60% means the tool fails almost half the time.

Ideally, you’d want results above 99% to consider it reliable.

GPTHuman AI vs. ChatGPT

Because GPTHuman’s results were disappointing, I decided to test the same samples with ChatGPT.

I followed the same steps but used ChatGPT to rephrase the text.

Here’s what I found:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI still identified most content as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

The average human score was 72.06%.

Compare that to GPTHuman’s 60.72%.

Clearly, ChatGPT performed much better.

ChatGPT is also free to use without limits.

In short: I’d always choose ChatGPT over GPTHuman.

Pricing

Starter — $10/month (15,000 words)

Up to 500 words per output
GPTHuman AI Humanizer
Shield Guard and AI detector
Human-quality, plagiarism-free text
Removes ChatGPT watermarks
50+ languages
Guaranteed AI detector bypass

Advanced — $25/month (50,000 words)

Up to 1,000 words per output
All Starter features
Higher word allowance

Pro — $40/month (120,000 words)

Up to 2,000 words per output
Same features as Advanced
Ideal for heavier use

Plus — $55/month (250,000 words)

Up to 2,000 words per output
Highest tier with maximum limits
Full access to all features

5. Claude AI

Claude AI is another ChatGPT competitor that generates text in a style very similar to ChatGPT. That’s why I was curious to see if it could match ChatGPT in making AI content appear human.

I ran these tests using this prompt.

It’s exactly the same prompt I used when testing ChatGPT as a humanizer.

If you’d like to try it yourself, you can sign up for Claude, paste in the prompt, and provide some AI-generated text.

Let’s see if Claude can outperform ChatGPT (or any of the other top humanization tools).

The Results

To test Claude AI, I took these steps:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Rewrote each sample with Claude.
Ran the outputs through AI detectors.
Recorded the results.

Here’s what the most popular detectors reported:

Claude AI Human scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	59%	0%	50%
Casual Blog	1%	100%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	1%	100%	91%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	50%
Overall Average	0.75%	89.5%	72.75%	74.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 59.38%

In this table:

0% = Entirely AI-generated
100% = Entirely human-written

Findings:

Winston AI detected the text as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was not very convinced.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t convinced either.

Overall, the average human score was 59.38%.

This is higher than the 6.88% baseline with no humanization.

However, 59.38% is still very weak. Even the better tools on this list fell short of the 99% range.

Claude doesn’t reliably disguise AI content—it still looks like AI about half the time.

Claude AI vs. ChatGPT

It’s an obvious comparison: how does Claude stack up against ChatGPT?

I repeated the same process, but used ChatGPT to rewrite the four text samples and then ran them through the same detectors.

Here were the ChatGPT results:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI still flagged most of the content as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

The average human score was 72.06%.

By comparison, Claude only reached 59.38%.

Clearly, ChatGPT did a much better job making the content appear human-written.

In short: I’d pick ChatGPT over Claude without hesitation.

Pricing

Free — $0/month

Available on web, iOS, and Android
Code generation and data visualization
Write, edit, and analyze text and images
Web search included

Pro — $17/month (or $20 billed monthly)

All Free features
Higher usage limits
Claude Code in the terminal
Unlimited Projects
Research tools
Google Workspace integration
Advanced context handling
Access to premium Claude models

Max — from $100/month

All Pro features included
5–20x more usage
Higher task output caps
Priority during busy times
Early access to new features

6. DeepSeek AI

DeepSeek AI is another ChatGPT alternative known for launching quickly and offering similar capabilities. Given their similarities, I wanted to see if DeepSeek could match ChatGPT’s ability to humanize AI-generated text.

I used this same prompt, identical to the one I used with ChatGPT.

If you’d like to test DeepSeek yourself, just sign up, paste in the prompt, and submit some AI-generated text.

You might expect results similar to ChatGPT—let’s see how it actually performed.

The Results

To evaluate DeepSeek AI, I did the following:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Rewrote each sample with DeepSeek.
Ran the rewritten text through AI detectors.
Averaged the scores.

Here are the results in a table:

DeepSeek AI Humanization scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	0%	43%	47%
Casual Blog	0%	98%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	0%	98%	100%	41%
Technical Expl.	0%	64%	100%	43%
Overall Average	0%	65%	85.75%	57.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 52.06%

In this table:

0% = Entirely AI-generated
100% = Entirely human-written

Findings:

Winston AI still identified the text as AI.
Originality AI was unconvinced.
QuillBot was mostly fooled, but not completely.
Undetectable.ai was not convinced.

The average human score was 52.06%.

This is well above the 6.88% baseline.

But it’s still very low. About half the time, the output still looks like AI.

Ideally, you’d want scores between 99% and 100% to consider it trustworthy.

DeepSeek AI vs. ChatGPT

For comparison, I repeated the same steps with ChatGPT as the humanizer.

Here were ChatGPT’s detection results:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI flagged most of the text as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was fully fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

The average human score was 72.06%.

Compare that to DeepSeek’s 52.06%—ChatGPT clearly performed much better.

In short: ChatGPT is far more reliable than DeepSeek for this purpose.

Pricing

Chatbot — Free

Unlimited usage
Access to DeepSeek V3 and R1 models
No login or subscription required

API — Pay-as-you-go (USD)

deepseek-chat (V3):

Input: $0.07 per 1M tokens (cache hit), $0.27 (miss)
Output: $1.10 per 1M tokens
Off-peak pricing: $0.035 (hit), $0.135 (miss), $0.55 output

deepseek-reasoner (R1):

Input: $0.14 per 1M tokens (hit), $0.55 (miss)
Output: $2.19 per 1M tokens
Off-peak pricing: $0.035 (hit), $0.135 (miss), $0.55 output

7. HumanizeAI

HumanizeAI is another much-talked-about AI humanizer. One appealing feature is the free trial with no signup required.

To use it, simply visit their site. No registration is needed.

Paste your text into the editor and click “Humanize.”

But does it really work? Can a free tool reliably make AI text sound human? Let’s find out.

The Results

To evaluate HumanizeAI, I did the following:

Created four AI-generated text samples.
Processed each one with HumanizeAI.
Ran the results through AI detectors.
Collected the scores.

Here’s what the most popular detectors reported:

HumanizePro AI content scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	39%	0%	25%
Casual Blog	0%	99%	100%	32%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	30%
Technical Expl.	1%	100%	72%	49%
Overall Average	0.25%	84.5%	68%	34%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 46.19%

In this table:

0% = Fully AI-generated
100% = Fully human-written

Observations:

Winston AI detected the text as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was only partially fooled.
Undetectable.ai wasn’t convinced at all.

The average human score was 46.19%.

While this is higher than the 6.88% baseline, it’s still poor.

Nearly half of the time, the output still read as AI-generated.

Ideally, you’d want scores between 99% and 100% to consider a tool reliable.

HumanizeAI vs. ChatGPT

To compare, I ran the same samples through ChatGPT and tested the outputs.

Here’s how ChatGPT scored:

ChatGPT Humanizer: AI Detection Scores

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	1%	70%	100%	99%
Casual Blog	19%	100%	100%	48%
Creative Writing	19%	99%	100%	99%
Technical Expl.	1%	99%	100%	99%
Total Average	10%	92%	100%	86.25%

Average score on all AI detectors: 72.06%

Summary:

Winston AI still recognized most of the text as AI.
Originality AI was mostly fooled.
QuillBot was completely fooled.
Undetectable.ai was mostly fooled.

ChatGPT achieved an average score of 72.06%.

In comparison, HumanizeAI only reached 46.19%.

Clearly, ChatGPT performed much better.

In short: I’d choose ChatGPT over HumanizeAI every time.

Pricing

Lite — $19/month (20,000 words)

500 words per run
All modes and settings
Undetectable by AI detectors
No random or awkward phrasing
Continuous updates
Customer support

Standard — $29/month (50,000 words)

Unlimited words per run
All Lite features
Free re-paraphrasing

Pro — $79/month (150,000 words)

Unlimited words per run
All Standard features
Highest word allowance

Improved Prompts for AI Humanizers?

After testing all these tools with a basic prompt, I wanted to see what would happen if I created a more carefully crafted prompt in ChatGPT.

This time, I told ChatGPT to imitate my personal writing style and used a blog post I had written myself as a reference.

Surely that approach should work better, right?

I asked it to match my tone and style exactly.

Here are the results:

ChatGPT AI human scores with improved prompt

Content Type	Winston AI	Originality AI	QuillBot Detector	Undetectable.ai Detector
Formal Essay	0%	1%	59%	30%
Casual Blog	1%	100%	100%	99%
Creative Writing	0%	100%	100%	38%
Technical Expl.	0%	1%	32%	99%
Overall Average	0.25%	50.5%	72.75%	66.5%

Total Combined Average (all 16 values): 47.5%

The average human score dropped to 47.5%.

That’s significantly lower than the 70%+ score I got earlier with a simpler prompt.

Ironically, improving the prompt actually made the humanization worse.

Maybe it was just random luck (AI outputs are unpredictable), but it still proves how inconsistent these tools are.

Whatever the reason, this confirms how difficult it is to “humanize” AI text reliably.

If you try random tools or prompts and your score isn’t above 99%, you already know the technology isn’t dependable.

How AI Humanizers Work (and Why They Fall Short)

So why are AI humanizers generally ineffective?

Here’s the reality:

Most of these tools are just wrappers around ChatGPT or similar language models. There’s no secret algorithm or special anti-detector technology. What they really do is:

Take your AI-generated text.
Add prompt instructions (like “Rewrite this to sound human”).
Send it to an LLM.
Return a rephrased version.

That’s it.

It’s blunt, but that’s the truth.

And because AI is rewriting AI, it still ends up sounding artificial.

AI detectors look for telltale signs: repetition, unnatural flow, too-perfect grammar, and lack of randomness. Even with rephrasing, these traits often remain because the underlying process is still AI.

Plus, many popular tools don’t train on real human writing—they only rephrase. That might occasionally fool a detector, but not consistently. And when it does, the content often sounds awkward or low quality.

Why These Tools Still Exist

You might wonder: If they don’t work well, why are there so many?

Simple: they sell.

It’s not always about building the best product. It’s about meeting demand.

Right now, “AI humanizer” is a high-traffic keyword.

You can see that from the above Semrush search traffic report. It suggests there are hundreds of thousands of people searching for those every month.

In the US alone, there are over 246,000 Google searches every month for “AI humanizer.”

That’s mostly students, freelancers, and SEO professionals trying to bypass detectors.

Where there’s search volume, there’s a product. It doesn’t matter whether it works. If people look for it, someone will sell it.

And most users don’t test the results like I did. They paste in text, see a few words changed, and assume it’s good enough. That alone is enough to drive subscriptions and upgrades.

The developers know it’s imperfect. But if the demand is there, they build it anyway.

That’s the business model.

And honestly, I don’t hate it. Most business works that way—someone builds a product that isn’t great, uses the revenue to create something better later.

Just be aware this is how it operates.

How to Fool AI Detectors… The Real Way

If you want to beat AI detectors, you don’t need a humanizer.

You need to be human.

Sounds obvious, but it’s the truth.

The only consistent way to pass detection is to create content only a human could write—based on real experience.

Not regurgitated facts or generic fluff, but actual expertise.

That looks like:

Personal stories
Real insights from doing the work
Details only an expert would know
Specifics ChatGPT can’t invent

Check out some of my own posts.

They aren’t perfect writing.

But they get read because they save people time and share my firsthand results. That’s what really matters.

This content doesn’t just pass AI detectors—it makes the web better. It builds trust and authority.

Yes, it takes work. But it’s supposed to.

Everyone has access to the same AI tools. If you’re just publishing another generic post, it won’t stand out. Not because it’s unethical—but because it doesn’t work.

AI Detectors Miss the Point

AI detectors can be tricked easily. But even if they weren’t, it wouldn’t fix the core problem.

AI-generated content just feels artificial.

When you use a “humanizer,” you’re not creating something new—you’re just making the text slightly less obvious.

These tools try to game the system: tweaking sentences, adding randomness, breaking up patterns to raise the “human score.”

Sometimes it works. Often it doesn’t.

Remember: you don’t win by blending in. You win by adding value. If you don’t have something original to say, it’s better not to say it.

I Don’t Use AI Humanizers

Personally, I don’t use AI humanizers. I don’t bother with AI detectors either.

Not because I’m trying to take the high ground—because they’re pointless.

Even if they worked perfectly, they wouldn’t help.

It’s about creating content that matters.

Before AI blew up, freelancers were already writing shallow blog posts on topics they barely understood—just recycled fluff.

AI just speeds up that process. But the end result is still unhelpful.

Gaming the system doesn’t work. Search engines are too smart. Readers are too smart. You might pass a detector for a moment, but it won’t matter if your content is bad.

The only strategy that truly works is this:

👉 Write about what you know.

👉 Help people.

👉 Put in the effort.

That’s the whole playbook.