The Google Docs Feature That Terrifies AI Users

In partnership with

Welcome to the trenches. It’s 11:00 PM, and you’re staring at an essay on The Great Gatsby that uses words like "juxtaposition" and "ephemeral" with the confidence of a seasoned literary critic, yet sits next to a student’s in-class writing that struggles with basic subject-verb agreement. The "AI detector" you ran it through gave you a helpful "48% likelihood of AI," which is about as useful as a weather forecast predicting a "50% chance of weather." The existential dread of grading soulless, algorithm-generated papers is real, and the cat-and-mouse game of trying to catch them with clunky software is a losing battle.

It’s time for a pivot. The solution isn't better detection tools; it's a radical transparency in the drafting process. Instead of playing detective on a final product, the focus needs to shift to the messy, chaotic, and beautifully human construction site of writing. We need to stop grading the building and start grading the blueprints, the scaffolding, and the pile of discarded bricks. It’s time to embrace the "Time Machine" method.

🔉 But first, a word from today’s sponsor

The Tech newsletter for Engineers who want to stay ahead

Tech moves fast, but you're still playing catch-up?

That's exactly why 100K+ engineers working at Google, Meta, and Apple read The Code twice a week.

Here's what you get:

• Curated tech news that shapes your career - Filtered from thousands of sources so you know what's coming 6 months early.

• Practical resources you can use immediately - Real tutorials and tools that solve actual engineering problems.

• Research papers and insights decoded - We break down complex tech so you understand what matters.

All delivered twice a week in just 2 short emails.

Join 100K+ engineers

🚀 Noteworthy News

👉️ Australia’s Social Media Ban: I’m 15 years old and have a disability. Social media has been a lifeline – why is the government kicking me off?

👉️ Mathematical: A new study shows little kids who count on their fingers do better at maths

👉️ You’ve still got it: The Paralysis of the Middle-Aged Creative Mind

The Myth of the Immaculate Draft

Let's talk about the "0 to 100" phenomenon. You open a Google Doc, and the revision history shows a blank page at 8:03 AM. By 8:15 AM, a perfectly structured, grammatically flawless five-paragraph essay has materialized, like Athena springing fully formed from Zeus's head. This isn't writing; it's a magic trick. A student's writing process is rarely a straight line from start to finish. It's a series of starts, stops, deletions, and frantic late-night revisions. A flawless final product with no history of struggle is the biggest red flag of all.

Trying to prove a negative—that a student didn't write a paper—is a recipe for burnout. It puts the teacher in the adversarial role of a prosecutor, armed with unreliable evidence from AI detectors that can be easily fooled. This approach erodes trust and turns the classroom into a courtroom. The burden of proof needs to shift back where it belongs: on the student to demonstrate their ownership of the work. The goal isn't to catch them in a lie, but to have them show you the truth of their labor.

Weaponizing Version History (kindly)

Your greatest ally in this new landscape isn't a fancy new app; it's a feature that's been sitting in your Google Docs toolbar for years: Version History. This isn't just a tool for recovering lost work; it's a digital truth-teller. A student can paste a ChatGPT essay in seconds, but they can't fake the hundreds of small edits, the pauses for thought, and the organic growth of a genuine piece of writing.

Think of it as a time-lapse video of their brain at work. You can see the moment they struggled with a thesis statement, the paragraph they deleted in frustration, and the typos they corrected along the way. For a more visual representation, tools like the Revision History Chrome extension or Draftback can play back the entire writing process like a movie. When a student knows their process is visible, the temptation to outsource the work to an AI diminishes significantly. It turns the essay from a static product into a visible journey.

The “I Wrote It In Notes” Defense

We’ve all heard it: "Oh, I wrote it on my phone in the Notes app and just pasted it in." It's the modern-day equivalent of "the dog ate my homework." While it’s possible a student is a thumb-typing prodigy, it also happens to be the perfect cover story for pasting in an AI-generated block of text. This loophole needs to be closed, gently but firmly.

The counter-move is a simple, non-negotiable policy: "If I can't see the build, I can't grade the building." Make it clear from day one that all writing must be done within the designated Google Doc. If they absolutely must draft elsewhere, they are responsible for providing a verifiable digital paper trail—screenshots of their Notes app with timestamps, a link to the edit history of their alternative platform, or some other irrefutable proof of their labor. This isn't about mistrust; it's about establishing a standard of professional transparency. It’s a "show your work" policy for the digital age.

Grading the Mess (Not Just the Polish)

This shift in tactics requires a shift in philosophy. We are no longer just grading the final PDF; we are grading the thinking that got them there. A polished essay that says nothing new is far less valuable than a messy draft that shows a student wrestling with complex ideas. The former is a product of an algorithm; the latter is a product of a human mind.

When we de-emphasize the final product and place value on the process, we give students permission to be imperfect. We create a space where bad spelling, crossed-out sentences, and structural dead-ends are not failures, but necessary steps on the path to understanding. A "messy" draft that shows genuine human effort, even if it’s full of errors, is infinitely more commendable than a flawless hallucination generated by a chatbot. This approach forces students to slow down, engage with the material, and actually think, rather than outsourcing their cognition to a machine.

The Takeaway

Adopting the "Time Machine" method requires more front-loading. You'll need to teach your students how to track their work and set clear expectations about process transparency. But think of it as an investment in your future sanity. By shifting the focus to the journey, you save yourself from the endless, anxiety-inducing game of "Did AI write this?" during grading season.

Ultimately, the goal isn't to catch cheaters. It's to rescue the writing process itself. We want students to experience the frustration, the breakthroughs, and the satisfaction of wrestling a complex idea onto a page. That struggle is where the learning happens, and it’s the one thing an AI can never replicate. So, put down the AI detector, open up the version history, and start celebrating the beautiful, messy human process of writing.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

We would LOVE to hear from you!

Reply to this email, or send us a message on Instagram! We’re here to walk with you in these crazy times!

Part of what makes The PEN Weekly community so special is the fact that our readers are teachers from around the world! We’re not going to lie, we think that’s pretty darn cool!

We’ll see you again on Wednesday 🍎

Share this newsletter!

Do you know someone who would appreciate reading the PEN? Share this newsletter with them! Our goal is to reach as many teachers as possible, and to build a community of teachers supporting teachers.