A study from Paris Cité University, now published in Computers in Human Behavior Reports, found that chatbots can now pass for human even when they’re being questioned by other chatbots in Turing-style interviews.
In the experiment, seven interrogator bots, including OpenAI’s ChatGPT 4.5, Anthropic’s Claude 3.7 Sonnet, Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro, and xAI’s Grok 3, were allowed to ask up to 10 questions. They were also warned that some participants might lie. Even with that setup, the bots correctly identified another bot only 3 times across 98 tests, the study found.
Then the researchers ran the same chatbot again. First it got a plain “act human” instruction; after that, it was given a detailed personal backstory. Detection fell from already low to zero.
Human judges didn’t do much better. Evaluators rated the chatbot’s replies as more human than the answers from 20 real volunteers, the paper says. And when the bot was caught, it usually wasn’t because it got facts wrong. What gave it away was style: the writing looked too polished, too neat, too careful. The persona also kept its answers close to normal human length, averaging about 39 words, compared with 38 for the human participants.
If you track AI safety or depend on bot detection, this paper deserves your attention. The researchers point to a separate test with 1.5 million users where human accuracy was only about 60%.
That matters because commercial detectors still throw false positives, have a hard time with non-native English, and can be sidestepped with light paraphrasing or even small mistakes, the researchers note.
You can read the study in Computers in Human Behavior Reports. The authors argue that stronger safeguards will be needed, including cryptographic signatures, watermarking, transparency rules, and human review, especially since most of the research still centers on English and on North America, Europe, and China.
Author: Manuel Bosque
{
"social": {
"email": "",
"facebook": "",
"twitter": "",
"linkedin": ""
},
"ja-JP": "",
"de-DE": "Manuel Bosque schreibt bei Softonic über Software: Desktop-Programme, Produktivitätswerkzeuge und kleine Tools, die ein Problem wirklich lösen. Sein Maßstab ist praktisch — was ein Programm tatsächlich leistet, was es dafür verlangt und für wen es sich lohnt —, deshalb misstraut er Funktionslisten und testet lieber selbst. Er gehört zum Team, das festlegt, wie Software auf der Seite behandelt wird, und arbeitet täglich mit KI-Werkzeugen in der redaktionellen Produktion.",
"en-US": "Manuel Bosque covers software at Softonic: desktop programs, productivity tools and the small utilities that solve one problem well. His approach is practical — what a program actually does, what it asks in return and who it is for — which is why he distrusts feature lists and prefers to test. He is part of the team that decides how software gets covered on the site, and works daily with AI tools applied to editorial production.",
"es-ES": "Manuel Bosque se ocupa de la cobertura de software en Softonic: programas de escritorio, herramientas de productividad y utilidades pequeñas que resuelven bien un solo problema. Su criterio es práctico —qué hace realmente un programa, qué pide a cambio y a quién le sirve—, y por eso desconfía de las listas de funciones y prefiere probar. Forma parte del equipo que decide cómo se cuenta el software en la web y trabaja a diario con herramientas de IA aplicadas a la producción editorial.",
"fr-FR": "Manuel Bosque couvre les logiciels chez Softonic : programmes de bureau, outils de productivité et petits utilitaires qui résolvent bien un seul problème. Son approche est pratique — ce qu'un logiciel fait vraiment, ce qu'il demande en échange et à qui il s'adresse —, d'où sa méfiance envers les listes de fonctionnalités et sa préférence pour l'essai. Il fait partie de l'équipe qui définit la manière de traiter le logiciel sur le site et travaille au quotidien avec des outils d'IA appliqués à la production éditoriale.",
"it-IT": "Manuel Bosque si occupa di software su Softonic: programmi per il desktop, strumenti di produttività e piccole utility che risolvono bene un solo problema. Il suo criterio è pratico — cosa fa davvero un programma, cosa chiede in cambio e a chi serve — e per questo diffida degli elenchi di funzioni e preferisce provare. Fa parte del team che decide come si racconta il software sul sito e lavora ogni giorno con strumenti di IA applicati alla produzione editoriale.",
"nl-NL": "Manuel Bosque schrijft bij Softonic over software: desktopprogramma's, productiviteitstools en kleine hulpprogramma's die één probleem echt oplossen. Zijn maatstaf is praktisch — wat een programma werkelijk doet, wat het daarvoor vraagt en voor wie het nuttig is — en daarom wantrouwt hij functielijstjes en test hij liever zelf. Hij maakt deel uit van het team dat bepaalt hoe software op de site wordt behandeld en werkt dagelijks met AI-tools in de redactionele productie.",
"pl-PL": "Manuel Bosque zajmuje się oprogramowaniem w Softonicu: programami na komputer, narzędziami do pracy i niewielkimi aplikacjami, które dobrze rozwiązują jeden problem. Jego kryterium jest praktyczne — co program naprawdę robi, czego wymaga w zamian i komu się przyda — dlatego nie ufa listom funkcji i woli sprawdzić sam. Należy do zespołu, który decyduje, jak pisać o oprogramowaniu w serwisie, i codziennie korzysta z narzędzi AI w produkcji redakcyjnej.",
"pt-BR": "Manuel Bosque cobre software na Softonic: programas para desktop, ferramentas de produtividade e pequenos utilitários que resolvem bem um problema só. Seu critério é prático — o que um programa realmente faz, o que pede em troca e para quem serve — e por isso desconfia de listas de recursos e prefere testar. Faz parte da equipe que define como o software é abordado no site e trabalha diariamente com ferramentas de IA aplicadas à produção editorial."
}
View all posts by Manuel Bosque
