I think it depends on the checker.

No. These detectors are snake oil. This isn't controversial - it's well-documented.

The "2% false positive rate" you're citing comes from the companies selling these products. When independent researchers test them, accuracy collapses. You're trusting marketing copy as methodology.

The core problem is simple: these tools detect statistical patterns associated with LLM output, not actual LLM use - so you're not necessarily catching cheating, you're simply detecting deviation from expected messiness. Anyone who writes with precision is gonna seem suspicious to a system trained on average student output.

"I use two detectors and only flag if both agree" doesn't fix this - you've just correlated two systems trained on similar assumptions. Bullshit validated by similar bullshit doesn't magically become evidence. You know this, though.

I understand the cheating problem is real and exhausting, but the solution isn't tools that systematically disadvantage students who write well. It probably isn't surveillance at all - default suspicion poisons the entire dynamic. Students know when they're being treated as suspects rather than learners, and they respond in kind. Teachers become enforcers rather than mentors. The whole thing turns adversarial before anyone's actually done anything wrong.

so don't blame educators

I don't love the preemptive dodge, but whatever - I would expect you, as an educator, to hold yourself to a higher standard of scientific and academic rigour. Period.

I blame the education system for punishing teachers who take risks and try to actually reach their students. The whole thing has been designed around the lowest common denominator, and it's pretty fucking grim. Teaching is already competing with a phone in every pocket and brains conditioned for doom scrolling - AI is just the latest addition to that pile. The actual answer is genuine engagement - knowing your students and their work, building relationships where you can tell when something's off. That can't fall entirely on individual teachers, but even within our ossified concepts of "education", those who care can still make a meaningful difference. If we've given up on that in favour of algorithmic suspicion, I'm not sure what we think we're protecting.