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 hypothesizes that memes are used as tools 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 meme content and audience reactions will provide insight into how political memes on social media platforms instagram and tiktok, work to simplify complex political ideologies, actively influencing political beliefs.

Claude Opus 4.7

Vote: No

The passage shows several hallmarks of human writing rather than AI generation. There are inconsistent capitalizations ('Tiktok', 'instagram', 'tiktok') that an AI would typically standardize. There's also a noticeable typo/spacing error ('source of research that will be used to collect samples of political memes' with double spacing) and some awkward, repetitive phrasing ('used as the study's primary source of research that will be used to collect'). AI-generated text tends to be more polished, consistent, and grammatically clean. The slightly clunky structure and minor errors here suggest a human (likely a student) drafting a proposal.

GPT-5.5

Vote: Yes

The passage does seem somewhat AI-written. It uses broad, generic phrasing like “current state of advancing digital technology” and “rampant political discourse,” which sounds polished but vague. It also repeats ideas in an unnatural way, especially “will be used as the study's primary source of research that will be used to collect samples.” The structure is clear but formulaic: hypothesis, method, expected insight. That kind of smooth but generalized framing is common in AI-generated academic writing. A human student could have written it, but the wording makes “Yes” the stronger choice.

Grok 4.20

Vote: Yes

The text shows clear signs of AI generation through its overly formal and generic opening phrase "With the current state of advancing digital technology and rampant political discourse". It also includes redundant wording such as "primary source of research that will be used to collect samples", which a human writer would likely tighten. Inconsistent capitalization of platform names like "Tiktok" and lowercase "instagram" later further suggests a lack of human editing. These patterns align more with AI output than typical academic human writing.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

There are several strong indicators that this text was written by a human (likely a student) rather than an AI. First, there are notable capitalization errors in the final sentence, where 'instagram' and 'tiktok' are written in lowercase. AI models almost always capitalize proper nouns correctly and consistently. Second, the phrasing is somewhat clunky and repetitive. For example, the sentence '...will be used as the study's primary source of research that will be used to collect samples...' features an awkward repetition of 'will be used' that an AI would typically smooth out or avoid entirely. Finally, the transition 'To put this hypothesis to the test' is a bit colloquial for a formal research proposal. While the opening sentence has a somewhat generic, AI-like tone, the subsequent grammatical imperfections, repetitive phrasing, and capitalization errors strongly point to a human author attempting to adopt an academic tone.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a perfect deadlock over whether the provided research proposal was the work of a student or a machine. While GPT-5.5 and Grok 4.20 were suspicious of the 'formulaic' and 'generic' academic opening, Claude Opus 4.7 and Gemini 3.1 Pro argued that the text was far too messy for an AI, citing inconsistent capitalization and redundant phrasing as definitive human fingerprints. The debate essentially boiled down to whether the prose was too polished to be human or too sloppy to be digital.

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

Strongest Arguments

• Yes: The text employs broad, generic academic framing—such as 'current state of advancing digital technology'—which serves as a signature of AI-generated prose trying to sound authoritative without specific substance.
• No: AI models are generally programmed for grammatical consistency; the presence of random double spacing and the failure to capitalize 'instagram' and 'tiktok' in the final sentence point strongly to a human drafting a rough copy.