Wow, you're taking in an Orwellian direction. The reason my extension doesn't qualify as a gatekeeper under your definition is that its use is distributed, not centralized. Each individual user gets to set the tolerance threshold according to their use case. It has no power to "act autonomously."
It also can't be used as a gatekeeper in that sense precisely because of its inherent fallibility. It will definitely miss some gen-AI writing and return false positives on real human writing. It's only supposed to be "much better than nothing" for people who reject the inhuman homogeneity of AI-writing and want to see less of it on their screen.
I'm not sure I follow your trickle-down argument, but in any case, the system is dynamic. It checks daily for new models and human-authored articles on their specific ticks, and cross-checks a corpus of known human-authored works. It will track both AI and human writing over time and adjust accordingly.
To your first point, yes, I agree. I would continue the thought that many of them are irritated with it and would rather not see it at all.
To the second point, that's the idea behind the adjustable threshold. It is indeed hard to distinguish; the extension will miss some gen-AI writing and return false-positives on some human writing. The user gets to decide which side to err toward.
It will never be infallible because the writing won't have C2PA metadata attached to it the way media does. It's just a tool that is a whole lot better than nothing for people who don't want to waste their time reading something written by a robot, or hate the inhuman homogeneity of "AI style." Don't you ever find yourself thinking "nobody talks like this?"
Good question! The idea is that if the tools like this gain sufficient adoption, people will stop seeing gen-AI content. Why post if no views?
If you need people to take you seriously and there is a chance that they will judge you for your gen-AI content because they know it's not your own work, would you still post it?
Thanks! It's actually dynamic. The backend contains a sequence that checks daily for new model updates and human-published documents regarding AI writing tells, then adjusts scoring accordingly.
That scoring methodology is the only part of the extension that's not open source; it's hidden behind a Cloudflare worker to prevent reverse engineering.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by gatekeeper. Is it intended to keep the robots out? Yes, in that sense it belongs to the Cloudflare camp of bot detection software, not really a new thing.
AI-speak won't become average-speak if I have anything to do with it. I want people to continue using their own brains to construct sentences rather than farming them out to machines.
You mean like the Google login QR I can already bypass with an extension? I'm not sure this is a real step forward in the arms race, and I'm cool with that.
It also can't be used as a gatekeeper in that sense precisely because of its inherent fallibility. It will definitely miss some gen-AI writing and return false positives on real human writing. It's only supposed to be "much better than nothing" for people who reject the inhuman homogeneity of AI-writing and want to see less of it on their screen.
I'm not sure I follow your trickle-down argument, but in any case, the system is dynamic. It checks daily for new models and human-authored articles on their specific ticks, and cross-checks a corpus of known human-authored works. It will track both AI and human writing over time and adjust accordingly.