Those are all situationally-valid criticisms, but I've long thought the ability to have smartphones' cameras cryptographically sign photos is good when available. The use case is demonstrating a photo wasn't doctored, and that it came from a device associated with e.g. a journalist, who maintains a public key. Of course, it should be optional.

Hi! I want anonymity! I also want to be able to prove what level of effort has been put in to something. I think there's room for both. This is an encrypted proof that I wrote something on a keyboard that tracks fingers. The protocol allows you to optionally sign it with your identity, but that isn't strictly required.

It is an attempt at putting something into the conversation more than just "OSS is broken because there are too many slop PRs." What if OSS required a human to attest that they actually looked at the code they're submitting? This tool could help with that.

Yes LLMs were used greatly in the production of this prototype!

It doesn't change the goal of the experiment! or it's potential utility! Do you see any potential area in your world where some piece of this is valuable?

> Yes, even their "humanifesto" is LLM output, and is written almost exclusively in the "it's not X <emdash> it's Y" style.

....no. There's not a single occurrence of that.

https://keywitness.io/manifesto

There are six emdashes on that page. NONE of them are "it's not X it's why".

> Emails, messages, essays, code reviews, love letters — all suspect.

> We believe this can be solved — not by detecting AI, but by proving humanity.

> KeyWitness captures cryptographic proof at the point of input — the keyboard.

> When you seal a message, the keyboard builds a W3C Verifiable Credential — a self-contained proof that can be verified by anyone, anywhere, without trusting us or any central authority.

> That's an alphabet of 774 symbols — each carrying log2(774) ≈ 9.6 bits. 27 emoji for 256 bits.

> They're a declaration: this message was written by a person — one of the diverse, imperfect, irreplaceable humans who still choose to type their own words.

Clarifications: 4

Continuation from a list: 1

Could just be a comma: 1

"It's not X -- it's Y": 0.

If you're going to make lazy commentary about good writing being AI, please at least be sure that you're reading the content and saying accurate things.

I'm actually building a physical keyboard for those people who don't have iphones! Though given the reaction I'm seeing here, I probably won't share it with this audience :-P it has capacitive keys, a secure enclave, and a fingerprint sensor.

Hi! You don't need an x.com account to download, that's just the easiest way to dm me. If you're actually interested, I can let you try it! The source is also available.

It proves 1) that an apple device with a secure enclave signed it. 2) that my app signed it.

If you trust the binary I've distributed is the same as the one on the app store, then it also proves: 3) that it was typed on my keyboard not using automation (though as others have mentioned, you could build a capacitive robot to type on it) 4) that the typer has the same private key as previous messages they've signed (if you have an out of band way to corroborate that's great too) 5) optionally, that the person whose biometrics are associated with the device approved it.

There is also an optional voice to text mode that uses 3d face mesh to attempt to verify the words were spoken live.

Not every level of verification is required by the ptrotocol, so you could attest that it was written on a keyboard, but not who wrote it (not yet implemented in the client app).

The protocol doesn't require you to run my app, if you compile it yourself, you can create your own web of trust around you!

You might want to check out “How it Works” on the site as none of what you said applies: https://typed.by/how

That's not what this is. at all.