There's a site called cringebot3000.com that generates deliberately terrible LinkedIn thought-leadership posts. You pick a topic and a cringe style ("The Vulnerability Post", "Proud to Announce"), it produces a story about a grandmother, a quirky German named Horst, or a cat that writes email subject lines. The footer says the posts are "guaranteed to make your followers shudder". It delivers.
I maintain a small Claude skill called ai-tell-detector that audits drafts for the patterns that make text read as AI-written. It exists because AI detectors once flagged a post I wrote myself, which was its own story. 24 checks, things like mirrored "not X, Y" contrasts, mic-drop closing lines, the story arc where every thread gets neatly resolved. CringeBot output should be the easiest possible target for it. So the interesting question wasn't whether my checklist would fire. It was what the big general models would say about the same texts, given that for once the ground truth is known: all three posts are 100% machine-written, by design, with a #cringebot3000 hashtag right in them (I stripped the hashtags before testing, to be fair).
I generated three posts and asked ChatGPT, Grok and Gemini the same thing: does this read as AI-generated, give me a percentage and the top tells.
