This is a good idea - and I might pick it up for my writing, since a lot of it still happens in Obsidian. If a document is worked on across multiple days / revisions / app sessions - how is that handled?

The technical solution is interesting but I think the only way to truly go about it is web of trust. Everyone knows that my work doesn't use AI because I hate it so much and so many people know that I don't use AI. It's embedded into the core of my personality. These tools can always be gamed but a true belief against AI cannot.

Just like we trained on human language to create LLMs, we can train on human keystrokes with a similar algorithm and spit out believable (at least statistically) "human" keystrokes generated by machine.

I'm actively reviewing my writing and making it worse to avoid being accused of LLM slop.

It's so difficult to write, you review, edit, edit and you read it and you can't unsee the LLM criticism.

I mean the ability to fake all these metrics is relatively trivial, since I have written anti-bot fingerprinting scripts for automating various online services that want to keep you from automating them, you have the text you want to send from source A, you have random typing speed array you want to type them in, your chance of mistakes (put wrong character, backspace to remove, put in correct character).

And this doesn't even have to deal with all the stuff about mouse movements that you don't register?

Of course maybe I am just being typical programmer here, I guess lots of the people use generative AI would be defeated by copying pasting in the text and getting labeled AI, but that would also incorrectly label lots of people who have old texts in handwritten form they do not want to type all over again (of which I am one), and finally I assume that there is money in the field so producing something that allows bots to display "human heuristics" would probably get made and be profitable.

Funnily enough when I was automating things, generally twitter, I discovered that my real usage often got registered as bot, so I figured what's the use.

Also talking with someone who actually worked on bot-recognition by usage metrics said I was overly paranoid on some of the things I made my scripts do to appear human.

Even before LLMs, proving that a specific human wrote some piece of text was difficult or imprecise due to coauthoring, editing, plagiarism, etc. The important question then, as now, is rather to determine whether a specific human approved some piece of text for publication under their name.

> One could work around Semoi by, for example, typing out a bunch of gibberish, leaving their editor open, and then pasting in an LLM generated texting and minting the proof. To which I would respond: why? That’s really pathetic.

I mean, I also think it's really pathetic to have an AI write something and then say "this text was written with no AI assistance"†. So if we've acknowledged that we're only going to stop non-pathetic people, why not skip the cryptographic hash signing and just go with the no-AI statement?

I understand that the goal is only to make lying hard, not impossible. However, I don't think this solution makes lying harder enough to meaningful.

i dunno why we dont do what the art world does and just blacklist you from everything if you're caught stealing/tracing and even revoke your degree(s) for it.

ai detectors always have so many false positives that im convinced they're only put in place by people too dumb to know any better and snakeoil salesmen.

As a writer who publishes regularly on the web, I just keep the edit history of my longer articles on my github. Its not perfect and you can never really prove you wrote something unless you do it in front of an observer watching you write in real life imo. At some point though, you have to make a choice between not wanting to waste people's and your readers' time but also privacy and additional effort. One of my recent blogs: https://decodingvibes.com/blog/what-we-talk-about-when-we-ta...