This study investigates whether professional translators can reliably identify short stories generated in Italian by artificial intelligence (AI) without prior specialized training. Sixty-nine translators took part in an in-person experiment, where they assessed three anonymized short stories - two written by ChatGPT-4o and one by a human author. For each story, participants rated the likelihood of AI authorship and provided justifications for their choices. While average results were inconclusive, a statistically significant subset (16.2%) successfully distinguished the synthetic texts from the human text, suggesting that their judgements were informed by analytical skill rather than chance. However, a nearly equal number misclassified the texts in the opposite direction, often relying on subjective impressions rather than objective markers, possibly reflecting a reader preference for AI-generated texts. Low burstiness and narrative contradiction emerged as the most reliable indicators of synthetic authorship, with unexpected calques, semantic loans and syntactic transfer from English also reported. In contrast, features such as grammatical accuracy and emotional tone frequently led to misclassification. These findings raise questions about the role and scope of synthetic-text editing in professional contexts.

Given the growing use of generative artificial intelligence as a tool for creating multilingual content and bypassing traditional translation methods, this study explores the ability of linguistically trained individuals to discern machine-generated output from human-written text (HT). After brief training sessions on the textual anomalies characteristic of synthetic text (ST), twenty-three postgraduate translation students analysed excerpts of Italian prose and assigned likelihood scores to indicate whether they believed they were human-written or AI-generated. The results show that, on average, the students struggled to distinguish between HT and ST, with only two participants achieving notable accuracy. Closer analysis revealed that the students often identified textual anomalies in both HT and ST, although features such as low burstiness and self-contradiction were more frequently associated with ST. These findings suggest the need for improvements in the preparatory training. Moreover, the study raises questions about the necessity of editing synthetic text to make it sound more human-like and recommends further research to determine whether AI-generated text is already sufficiently natural-sounding not to require further refinement.