From article: > The marker's notes - seen by the BBC - raise concerns about the "polished/uniform tone" of the work, noting the "consistent flawless grammar and similar sentence structure with no variation in style". The notes also mention a "formulaic paragraph structure that follows a typical AI pattern of 'general claim, the example/result, and conclusion'." Other observations point to repetitive phrasing and a lack of "nuanced critique" as well as a high usage of "em" dashes, a type of punctuation thought to be favoured by AI models.

Judging by the given remarks I see nothing here which proves AI use.

Would you say there is any way to definitively prove a text is AI generated?

I believe it's impossible to prove that some text was generated by an LLM simply due to the limitations of the medium. At the end of the day, text is just a sequence of bytes, and a keyboard can create a byte-identical sequence to an LLM generated one.

Of course you can run various statistical tools, judge a text by gut feeling, or look for specific clues that LLMs usually generate more than humans (e.g. em dashes). But none of those will ever be a proof. Just indications, which together could add up to a very high likelihood.

IMO, the only way to prove an LLM generated some text is to see the original chat session.