Props for responding constructively.

The false positive rate is pretty low, but a false negative of 35% is pretty concerning in terms of whether they're fit for purpose. Like it'll rarely misclassify human writing as AI generated, but it's somewhat closer to a coin flip in correctly identifying AI generated language. It's a signal, but I imagine it's a poor substitute for the judgement of a person who has spent time teaching teenagers / young adults to write.

Which to the original point isn't totally snake oil, but it's maybe not a great tool for the professionals who it's targeting.