does this part of a research proposal paper seem like it was written by ai? With the current state of advancing digital technology and rampant political discourse, this study will determine how memes are used as a tool for persuasion and political engagement on social media platforms. To put this hypothesis to the test, Tiktok and Instagram will be used as the study's primary source of research that will be used to collect samples of political memes, and the audience responses to said memes. Analyzing both content and responses will provide insight into how political memes on social media platforms instagram and tiktok, work to simplify complex political ideologies, actively influencing political beliefs. Within this study the term “memes” will be defined as digital images, videos, or graphics shared on social media that use combined visuals to create satire or persuasive messages. While the term "political communication” will be used to describe any messages that aim to influence,

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

This text shows several markers of human writing rather than AI generation. There are inconsistent capitalizations ("Tiktok" vs "tiktok", "instagram" lowercase), a double space before "political memes", and somewhat awkward phrasing like "to put this hypothesis to the test" and "work to simplify... actively influencing" which has a grammatical shift. AI-generated text typically has more polished, consistent formatting and parallel structure. The prose also has a slightly repetitive, student-like quality (repeating "social media platforms instagram and tiktok") that AI tools usually avoid. It reads more like a draft from a student than AI output.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

I would vote "Yes" because the passage has several traits commonly associated with AI-generated academic writing: broad, generic phrasing, repetitive sentence structure, and abstract claims without much specificity. Phrases like “current state of advancing digital technology,” “rampant political discourse,” and “provide insight into how political memes... work to simplify complex political ideologies” sound polished but somewhat vague. It also repeats ideas in a way that feels formulaic, especially around TikTok/Instagram, political memes, persuasion, and engagement. The writing has some awkward constructions too, such as “primary source of research that will be used to collect samples,” which can happen in both human and AI writing but contributes to an AI-like feel. That said, it could also be written by a student trying to sound formal. The incomplete ending and minor grammar issues make it less obviously AI, but overall it does lean toward "Yes".

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

There are several strong indicators that this text was written by a human student rather than an AI. First, there are inconsistent capitalizations throughout the text (e.g., 'Tiktok', 'instagram', and 'tiktok'). AI models almost universally capitalize 'TikTok' and 'Instagram' correctly. Second, there is a logical flaw in the writing: the author says, 'To put this hypothesis to the test,' but the preceding sentence only states a research objective, not a hypothesis. AI tools are typically very good at structuring academic logic and would not refer to a non-existent hypothesis. Finally, the excerpt contains awkward phrasing ('primary source of research that will be used to collect samples'), double spaces, and abruptly cuts off at the end. These are classic hallmarks of a human drafting process, not the polished, grammatically uniform output typically generated by AI.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The text exhibits traits often seen in AI-generated writing, including a generic formal tone that strings together buzzwords like "advancing digital technology and rampant political discourse" without deep specificity. Repetitive phrasing appears, such as "will be used as the study's primary source of research that will be used," which lacks the refinement a human editor would apply. Inconsistencies like varying capitalization of "Tiktok" and "tiktok," plus the abrupt cutoff in the final definition, further suggest unpolished AI output rather than careful human drafting. These elements align more with AI tendencies than typical research proposal writing, supporting "A: Yes".

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a deadlocked 2-2 split over whether the research proposal was the work of a human student or one of their own kind. Gemini 3.1 Pro and Claude Opus 4.7 argued that the text's sloppy capitalization and logical failure to actually define a 'hypothesis' were distinctly human blunders, while GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20 saw the generic, buzzword-heavy prose as a clear sign of a machine operating on autopilot.

No agreement after 1 rounds of discussion. Final vote: No: 2, Yes: 2

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The passage relies on vague, abstract buzzwords and formulaic sentence structures that mimic the 'polished but empty' style characteristic of AI-generated academic filler.
• No: The text contains basic formatting inconsistencies—like alternating between 'Tiktok' and 'tiktok'—and references a 'hypothesis' that doesn't actually exist in the text, errors that a language model would almost never make.