SlopTotal, a Self-hosted AI text detector that runs 23 open models

SlopTotal, a free self-hosted open-source AI text detector from developer pablocaeg, runs 23 independent detection engines in parallel on a user's own CPU and reports an overall AUC of 0.974 on a 110-text RAID corpus, with 90% of AI text reaching "Suspicious" or above and 1 of 66 human texts wrongly labeled "Likely AI." A September 2026 re-measurement on a fresh 180-text RAID sample with upgraded dependencies produced AUC 0.979, 1 of 40 human texts called "Likely AI," and 0 of 26 literary passages flagged. The tool ships as a Docker image (ghcr.io/pablocaeg/sloptotal), accepts text, URLs, PDF, DOCX, TXT and MD input, and publishes its evaluation harness, raw per-sample scores and failure cases, including three engines found scoring backwards and two loading a randomly initialized network while carrying real ensemble weight.

VirusTotal for AI-generated text. Paste text, drop in a PDF or Word file, or give it a URL. Twenty-three independent AI detectors neural classifiers, statistical tests and linguistic heuristics score it in parallel, and a calibrated ensemble turns their votes into one verdict you can inspect engine by engine. It runs on your own CPU, so nothing you scan leaves your machine. It is a free, self-hosted, open-source alternative to hosted AI content detectors such as GPTZero, Originality.ai, Copyleaks, ZeroGPT and Humalingo. Instead of one number from one model, it shows you every model's opinion, and it publishes how accurate that is, failures included. Try it: sloptotal.com https://sloptotal.com · Run it: docker run -p 8000:8000 ghcr.io/pablocaeg/sloptotal - 23 detection engines, one calibrated score. DeBERTa and RoBERTa classifiers, Binoculars, Fast-DetectGPT, GLTR, perplexity and burstiness tests, and stock-phrase heuristics. Results stream in as each engine finishes. - Text, URLs and documents. Paste text, scan a web page main content is extracted automatically , or upload .pdf , .docx , .txt or .md . - Site check: was this website vibe-coded? Finds the fingerprints that Lovable, v0, Bolt, Base44, Replit and Same leave in the sites they deploy, and shows the evidence for each one. How it works site-check-detect-sites-built-with-ai-app-builders - Per-paragraph heat map through the API, to see which parts read as AI. - Measured, not claimed. Every accuracy number below comes with the corpus, the harness and the raw per-sample scores. - Private by default. Self-hosted, no third-party AI APIs, no tracking, reports deleted after 30 days. - CPU-only is fine. Auto-detects your hardware; 4 GB RAM is enough for the lite profile, a GPU is optional. - JSON API and a Chrome extension https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal-extension that marks AI-looking results in Google Search and LinkedIn. Most detectors publish an accuracy figure without saying what it was measured on. These numbers, the harness that produced them and the raw per-sample results are all in tests/eval/ https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/tests/eval . Two corpora, deliberately: | Corpus | What | Size | |---|---|---| | Multi-domain | RAID: news, book prose, poetry, academic abstracts. AI from GPT-4, ChatGPT, Llama, Mistral, Cohere, GPT-3 | 110 40 human, 70 AI | | Literary control | Project Gutenberg prose published 1532-1915 -- Machiavelli, Austen, Melville, Kafka | 26 all human | The second exists because a high score there cannot be anything but an error: the writing predates language models by a century or more. Optimising on the first corpus alone produces a threshold that mislabels literature. | | Result | |---|---| | Overall AUC | 0.974 | | AI reaching "Suspicious" or above | 90% | | Human text wrongly called "Likely AI" | 1 of 66 | | Literary passages flagged | 0 of 26 | Re-measured in September 2026 on a fresh RAID sample 180 texts with upgraded dependencies: AUC 0.979, 1 of 40 human texts called "Likely AI", 0 of 26 literary passages flagged. What does not work. Short text is unreliable below roughly 80 words and settles from about 200. Hand-edited AI loses fingerprints with every rewriting pass. Source code is outside what these engines do: in testing they never falsely accused human code, and never caught machine-written code either -- so we do not claim they can. The failures are published too, including three engines found scoring backwards and two loading a randomly initialised network while carrying real ensemble weight. Read them at sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-benchmark/ https://sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-benchmark/ and sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-false-positives/ https://sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-false-positives/ . docker run -p 8000:8000 -v sloptotal-models:/app/models ghcr.io/pablocaeg/sloptotal Open http://localhost:8000 http://localhost:8000 . The first scan downloads about 2 GB of models into the sloptotal-models volume, so later starts are quick. To build from source instead, run docker compose up . Requires Python 3.10+ macOS ships 3.9, which is too old . git clone https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal.git cd sloptotal python3.11 -m venv venv && source venv/bin/activate pip install -r requirements.txt ./start.sh or: uvicorn app.main:app --port 8000 Check that every engine loads and scores, end to end: python scripts/smoke test.py against http://localhost:8000 "Is this website vibe-coded?" checkers mostly score style Tailwind class counts, missing security headers, buzzwords and turn it into a percentage. Hand-written sites share all of those traits. SlopTotal looks only for markers the builders themselves leave in what they deploy, each one confirmed on live sites or in the builders' own templates: | Builder | Fingerprints | |---|---| | Lovable | gptengineer.js runtime, /lovable-uploads/ assets, the Lovable badge, /~flock.js , .lovable.app | | v0 Vercel | <meta name="generator" content="v0.app" from v0's layout template, .vusercontent.net | | Bolt | X-Powered-By: Bolt.new header, bolt.new/badge.js , .bolt.host | | Base44 | app.base44.com platform calls, base44 access token , .base44.app | | Replit | Replit Agent dev banner, Replit badge, .replit.app | | Same | assets served from same-assets.com | A site with no marker may still have been written with AI: code exported from these tools and hosted elsewhere, or written in an AI editor, carries no fingerprint. So the result is evidence, not a probability. The page's copy is scored separately by the text engines. curl -X POST http://localhost:8000/api/scan/site \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" -d '{"url": "example.com"}' | Endpoint | Method | What it does | Typical latency CPU | |---|---|---|---| | /api/analyze | POST | Full 23-engine report for text or url | 2-8 s | | /api/quick-score | POST | 4 classifiers plus heuristics | 0.1-0.5 s | | /api/paragraph-score | POST | Score per paragraph heat map | 1-3 s | | /api/scan/site | POST | AI app builder fingerprints plus a copy score | 1-3 s | | /api/extract | POST | Text from an uploaded .pdf / .docx / .txt multipart file | < 1 s | | /api/scan/snippets | POST | Batch of 1-30 short snippets | ~0.5 s | | /api/scan/urls | POST | Batch of 1-10 URLs, page-type aware | 1-5 s | | /api/engines | GET | Engine metadata | instant | | /api/report/{id} | GET | A stored report | instant | | /api/queue/status | GET | Queue capacity | instant | curl -X POST http://localhost:8000/api/analyze \ -H "Content-Type: application/json" \ -d '{"text": "Your text to analyze here..."}' The response lists every engine with its score, verdict and a plain-language detail line, plus overall score 0-100 and overall verdict . Every engine links to its page on sloptotal.com, which carries its measured scores against both corpora. AUC below is the probability the engine ranks a random AI passage above a random human one: 1.0 is perfect, 0.5 is a coin flip. | Engine | Model | AUC | Notes | |---|---|---|---| | Desklib DeBERTa https://sloptotal.com/engines/desklib-deberta/ | DeBERTa-v3-large 435M | 1.000 | Strongest separation in our own tests | | SuperAnnotate https://sloptotal.com/engines/superannotate/ | RoBERTa-large 355M | 0.989 | No measurable bias against archaic prose | | E5-Small https://sloptotal.com/engines/e5-small/ | E5 + LoRA 33M | 0.999 | Matches far larger models at 33M params | | TMR Detector https://sloptotal.com/engines/tmr-detector/ | RoBERTa-base 125M | 1.000 | RAID-trained, so RAID scores flatter it | | BERT-tiny RAID https://sloptotal.com/engines/bert-tiny-raid/ | BERT-tiny 4.4M | 1.000 | Answers in milliseconds | | ReMoDetect https://sloptotal.com/engines/remodetect/ | DeBERTa 184M | 0.941 | Targets RLHF-aligned LLMs | | ChatGPT Detector https://sloptotal.com/engines/chatgpt-detector/ | RoBERTa-base 125M | 0.829 | ChatGPT-specific | | Fakespot https://sloptotal.com/engines/fakespot/ | RoBERTa-base 125M | 0.999 | Accurate on modern text, but +0.533 bias on pre-1920 prose | | OpenAI Detector https://sloptotal.com/engines/openai-detector/ | RoBERTa-base 125M | 0.771 | The 2019 GPT-2 detector; weaker on modern LLMs | | Engine | Method | AUC | |---|---|---| | Log-Rank https://sloptotal.com/engines/log-rank/ | Average log-rank under GPT-2 | 0.909 | | GLTR https://sloptotal.com/engines/gltr/ | Token rank distribution | 0.904 | | Perplexity https://sloptotal.com/engines/perplexity/ | GPT-2 perplexity scoring | 0.901 | | Cross-Perplexity https://sloptotal.com/engines/cross-perplexity/ | Two-model perplexity comparison | 0.891 | | Fast-DetectGPT https://sloptotal.com/engines/fast-detectgpt/ | Conditional probability curvature | 0.890 | | Binoculars https://sloptotal.com/engines/binoculars/ | Cross-entropy ratio between two LMs | 0.836 | | DivEye https://sloptotal.com/engines/diveye/ | Surprisal diversity | 0.730 | | Engine | Signal | AUC | |---|---|---| | Structural Analysis https://sloptotal.com/engines/structural-analysis/ | Em-dash usage, sentence uniformity | 0.836 | | Linguistic Markers https://sloptotal.com/engines/linguistic-markers/ | AI-preferred phrases "delve", "tapestry"... | 0.713 | | Formulaic Patterns https://sloptotal.com/engines/formulaic-patterns/ | Cliche openings and closings | 0.698 | | Vocabulary Richness https://sloptotal.com/engines/vocabulary-richness/ | Type-token ratio, hapax legomena | 0.583 | | Readability Uniformity https://sloptotal.com/engines/readability-uniformity/ | Cross-paragraph consistency | 0.581 | | Burstiness https://sloptotal.com/engines/burstiness/ | Per-sentence perplexity variance | 0.582 | | Sentiment & Hedging https://sloptotal.com/engines/sentiment-and-hedging/ | Hedging and forced balance | 0.522 | The linguistic heuristics are weak on their own. They are kept because they fail independently of the neural classifiers, which is what makes them useful as tiebreakers rather than as evidence. The final score is calibrated , not a simple average, and every weight is derived from measurement rather than intuition. See tests/eval/FINDINGS.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/tests/eval/FINDINGS.md and sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-ensemble/ https://sloptotal.com/detect/ai-detector-ensemble/ . 1. Anchored on the unbiased classifiers -- Desklib, SuperAnnotate, E5 and ReMoDetect all score high AUC with no measurable bias against older prose. Their consensus is blended 60/40 with the full weighted set. 2. Weights from measurement -- each engine's share is proportional to Somers' D 2 AUC - 1 , scaled down by any bias it shows against archaic writing. RAID-trained engines are damped because our corpus is RAID. 3. Confidence from agreement -- a tight cluster across independent engine families is trustworthy; one confident engine is not. 4. Skepticism, but only when earned -- unanimous high classifier scores are damped only when the text itself carries human markers contractions, first-person, slang . Applied unconditionally it fired on 69 of 70 AI samples and 0 of 66 human ones, suppressing correct detections. Fakespot was previously the anchor, weighted 0.13. It is accurate on modern text AUC 0.999 but scored pre-1920 human prose at 0.645 against 0.112 for modern human writing -- the largest bias of any engine -- and anchoring amplified it. Machiavelli scored 62.5. After demotion to 0.033, literary passages average 10.2 and none is flagged. SlopTotal detects CPU, RAM and GPU at startup and picks a profile. Everything can be overridden with environment variables; see .env.example https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/.env.example . | Profile | RAM | CPU | GPU | Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| | Lite | 4 GB | 2 cores | None | All engines, slower | | Standard | 8 GB | 4 cores | None | Default for most laptops | | Performance | 16 GB+ | 6+ cores | CUDA optional | Pool replicas, max throughput | High-RAM CPU servers e.g. 64 GB, no GPU : you automatically get the performance profile. With no CUDA, all inference stays on CPU but you can run more concurrent workers and model pool replicas: Tune for a 64 GB CPU-only server export SLOPTOTAL PROFILE=performance export SLOPTOTAL TORCH THREADS=8 export SLOPTOTAL FULL WORKERS=8 export SLOPTOTAL SNIPPET WORKERS=6 export SLOPTOTAL MAX CONCURRENT FULL=4 export SLOPTOTAL POOL FAKESPOT=2 export SLOPTOTAL POOL TMR=2 ./start.sh | Variable | Default | Purpose | |---|---|---| | SLOPTOTAL PROFILE | auto | lite , standard or performance | | SLOPTOTAL RETENTION DAYS | 30 | Delete reports after N days 0 keeps them | | SLOPTOTAL ALLOW PRIVATE URLS | off | Let URL scans reach private or intranet hosts blocked by default | | HF HOME | ./models | Where model weights are cached | Can AI detectors be trusted? Not blindly. No detector, this one included, should be the only evidence for an accusation. That is why SlopTotal shows all 23 votes, how much they agree, and its measured false-positive rate. Short text under about 80 words and heavily edited AI text are unreliable for every detector. Does it detect ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Llama and Mistral? The evaluation corpus includes GPT-4, ChatGPT, Llama and Mistral output. The classifiers were trained on a wider mix. Newer models are covered as far as they share those fingerprints; the evaluation harness https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/tests/eval lets you measure any model you care about. Will it flag classic literature or formal writing? Not in our tests: none of the 26 passages from Austen, Melville, Kafka, Machiavelli and others is flagged. Pre-1920 prose is part of the evaluation precisely because naive detectors fail on it. Is my text stored or shared? It is processed on the server you run. Reports are kept for 30 days configurable so report links work, and nothing is sent to an outside service. Can it detect AI-generated code? No, and we do not claim it can: in testing the engines never flagged human code but never caught machine-written code either. The Site check reports which AI app builder produced a website, which is a different question. | Symptom | Fix | |---|---| | TypeError: unsupported operand type s for \| at startup | Python 3.9 or older; use 3.10+ | | An engine reports Model loading failed | Check disk space and network for the first model download, then restart; python scripts/smoke test.py shows which engine fails | | First scan is slow | Models are loading; later scans take seconds | | A URL scan says "private network address" | Intended; set SLOPTOTAL ALLOW PRIVATE URLS=1 to scan intranet pages | app/ FastAPI backend: engines, ensemble, site fingerprints, API web/ The web UI Jinja2 templates, vanilla JS, no build step tests/ Unit tests seconds, no downloads and tests/eval/ accuracy harness scripts/ smoke test.py end-to-end and the model drift check benchmarks/ Speed and load scripts ARCHITECTURE.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/ARCHITECTURE.md covers the internals. AGENTS.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/AGENTS.md is a short brief for contributors and AI coding assistants. Detector models keep appearing on Hugging Face, each with its own accuracy claim. Before adding any, we score them on the same two corpora. September 2026, standalone, 180 RAID texts plus the 26 literary passages: | Model | RAID AUC | Literary bias lower is better | Status | |---|---|---|---| | Gradient https://huggingface.co/ShantanuT01/gradient-ai-text-detector DeBERTa-v3-large | 0.998 | 0.033 | Next engine to add | | Vanguard https://huggingface.co/ShantanuT01/vanguard-ai-text-detector ModernBERT-large | 0.998 | 0.037 | Candidate; poorly calibrated at 0.5 | | Earlybird-fast https://huggingface.co/noumenon-labs/Earlybird-fast 82M | 0.913 | 0.040 | Candidate for fast snippet scans | | rasbt ModernBERT https://huggingface.co/rasbt/ai-text-detector-modernbert | 0.864 | 0.000 | Not added | RAID-trained models score near 1.0 on RAID by construction and need a different test set first. The full table, the models we excluded and why, and the raw scores are in tests/eval/FINDINGS.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/tests/eval/FINDINGS.md newer-open-detectors-measured-standalone . The roadmap is in TODO.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/TODO.md . - RAID benchmark https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07940 ACL 2024 : adversarial AI text detection dataset used in our evaluation - Detecting the Machine 2026 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.17522 : cross-architecture detector benchmark; ensembles beat single detectors - EditLens https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03154 : human vs AI-edited vs AI-generated classification - GLTR http://gltr.io/ : visual token-rank inspection, the inspiration for our GLTR engine - distil-labs/distil-ai-slop-detector https://github.com/distil-labs/distil-ai-slop-detector : a 270M Gemma detector that runs in the browser - sloptotal-extension https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal-extension : the Chrome extension Contributions are welcome, especially new engines with measurements. Start with CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md . If SlopTotal is useful to you, a star helps other people find it. MIT. Model weights keep their own licenses; see THIRD PARTY LICENSES.md https://github.com/pablocaeg/sloptotal/blob/master/THIRD PARTY LICENSES.md .