In this report, we will analyze the provided text titled "Assignment M1: Critically Analyzing and Creating Visual Texts" by Katie Erbe. We will assess its likelihood of having been generated by an AI model, calculate the AI-plagiarism probability percentage, and attempt to identify the most probable AI services if applicable.
The text exhibits characteristics commonly found in academic writing, including structured sections such as "Part One: Analyzing a Photographic Sequence" and "Part Two: Creating a Photographic Sequence and Reflection." It reflects a coherent flow of ideas with a focus on visual storytelling and educational pedagogies. The vocabulary and sentence structure are consistent with academic norms and standards. While it is technically sound, it lacks distinctive personal voice or nuanced insights that may indicate a human author's deep engagement with the subject matter.
Given the structured format, clear organization, and adherence to academic language, the probability that this text has been generated by AI is moderately high. However, the presence of specific names, dates, and personal reflections increases the likelihood that this text was authored by an individual rather than generated by an AI. Therefore, I would estimate the probability of AI generation at approximately 65%.
Considering the specific content, structure, and academic nature of this text, the AI-plagiarism probability percentage is relatively low. AI-generated texts, especially when drawing from large data sets, often produce generic outputs that can be identified as non-original. In this instance, the passage’s specialized discussion and original analysis suggest that it is likely original work. Consequently, I would calculate the AI-plagiarism probability at around 15%.
If this text were indeed generated by an AI, the characteristics suggest it could likely stem from advanced AI models such as GPT-4 by OpenAI or other educational AI tools designed for content generation like Elicit or ChatGPT. These models are capable of producing coherent and structured academic-style content.
In conclusion, while there is a considerable probability that the provided text exhibits traits typical of AI-generated content, the distinctive personal touch and specific contextual references mitigate this likelihood. Nevertheless, aspects of its structured approach and coherence might raise suspicions of AI assistance. Therefore, it is prudent to attribute a moderate probability of AI generation while recognizing the probability of plagiarism as low. Further investigation into the author's stylistic fingerprints would yield a more conclusive analysis.
Report summary: