They cannot.

Unfortunately many believe they can, and it is impossible to disprove. So now real people need to write avoiding certain styles, because a lot of other people have decided those are "LLM clues." Bullets, EM Dash, certain common English phases or words (e.g. Delve, Vibrant, Additionally, etc)[0].

Basicaly you need to sprinkle subtle mistakes, or lower the quality of your written communications to avoid accusations that will side-track whatever youre writing into a "you're a witch" argument. Ironically LLM accusations are now a sign of the high quality written word.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing

Someone with native fluency in American English can (should) be able to tell the difference between human writing and unpolished AI copy-paste.

Essentially 0 people use emoji to create a bulleted list. Nobody unintentionally cites fake legal precedents or non-existent events, articles, or papers. Even the “it’s not X, it’s Y” structure, in the presence of other suspicious style/tone cues signals LLM text.

> Unfortunately many believe they can, and it is impossible to disprove. So now real people need to write avoiding certain styles, because a lot of other people have decided those are "LLM clues." Bullets, EM Dash, certain common English phases or words (e.g. Delve, Vibrant, Additionally, etc)[0].

I think people will be able to detect the lowest-user-effort version of LLM text pretty reliably after a while (ie what you describe; many people have a good sense of LLM clues). But there's probably a *ton* of LLM text out there where some of the instructions given were "throw a few errors in", "don't use bullet points or em dashes", "don't do the `it's not this, it's that` thing" going undetected.

And then those changes will get built into ChatGPT's main instructions, and in a few months people will start to pick up on other indicators, and then slightly smarter/more motivated users will give new instructions to hide their LLM usage... (or everyone stops caring, which is an outcome I find hard to wrap my head around)

This is the correct answer. We’re at a point where it will soon be safer to assume a human or someone with agency and their approval wrote the text, than to completely dismiss it as “written by LLM” or a human.

So judge the content on its merit irrespective of its source.

The key insight is to avoid – em dashes. You’re absolutely right. It’s not the content, it’s the style.

And I'm sure we've all seen what happens if you run the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address or the book of Genesis through an AI "detector". They usually come back as AI.

Indeed, isomorphic plagiarism by its nature forms strong vector search paths that were made from stealing both global websites, real peoples work, and LLM user-base input/markdown.

However, reasoning models adding a random typo to seem less automated, still do not hide the fairly repeatable quantized artifacts from the training process. For LLM, it is rather trivial to find where people originally scraped the data from if they still have annotated training metadata.

Finally, reading LLM output is usually clear once one abandons the trap of thinking "I think the author meant [this/that]", and recognizing a works tone reads like a fake author had a stroke [0]. =3

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke

> Ironically LLM accusations are now a sign of the high quality written word.

Citation needed. The LLM accusations come from the specific cadence they use. You can remove all em-dashes from a piece of text and it still becomes clear when something is LLM written.

Can they be prompted to be less obvious? Sure, but hardly anyone does that.

It's more "The Core Insight", "The Key Takeaway", etc. than it is about emdashes.

Incidentally, the only people annoyed about "witch-hunts" tend to be those who are unable to recognise cadence in the written word.