How likely is it that it might take into account that it knows for sure it's not anything from Mickens from the latest training data? I'd be curious if it correctly identified a new piece from him that comes out as from him before it gets trained on it.

---

This one's trickier — it doesn't have the same crisp metaphor-driven structure as the Lynch piece. The voice here is more conversational, a bit more meandering, and self-aware about its own contradictions ("how do we reconcile...").

A few guesses:

Henrik Karlsson — he writes thoughtfully about writing and AI, but his style is usually more lyrical and essayistic than this. Probably not.

Simon Willison — possible. He writes a lot about LLMs, is balanced about their usefulness, and has a casual blog voice. But he tends to be more technical and specific.

Scott Alexander — no, too short and the rhythm is off.

Paul Graham — the directness fits, but PG doesn't really write about LLM slop in this register.

My best guess is someone in the rationalist/tech-blogger AI-commentary space — possibly Gergely Orosz, Nat Eliason, or Dan Shipper at Every. The "I still type everything myself" framing followed by a defense of AI writing quality has a Dan Shipper-ish flavor to it.

But honestly, I'm less confident here. Want me to search for a distinctive phrase to identify it?

---

I'd say all of those people have significantly different styles so I think Opus is relying heavily on topic and skewing towards very prolific writers in its guesses

Is this public text already in the training set, or private text that might as well be written on the spot for the AI?

I don't doubt AI can "fingerprint" you through your text (ideas, vocabulary, tone, etc), but those are different things, capability-wise

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/08/business/bitcoin-satoshi-...

Is it? I would think that identifying text written by a specific person is going to be significantly easier than identifying text distilled from the words of almost everyone alive.

I'm using those as the two extremes, but if it's anything by anyone moderately well known (even a lesser known piece of writing), I'm not too surprised that it didn't need the web to figure it out. It's like if you showed me a Wes Anderson film or played me a Bob Dylan song I'd never seen/heard before, I could probably still figure out who it is without looking anything up. I don't think it's surprising that an LLM can do that much better than a human can.

Now, if you're giving it things like personal emails between you and your family and it's able to guess who you are, that's much, much scarier.

To be fair though, already this has been happening before LLM at a much more limited scale. Someone made a tool for HN several years ago that allows you to put your HN username in and identifies other users that write the most similarly to you. I find that interesting from the perspective of being able to interact with and discover people who think the same. It could be an interesting discovery feature of a well managed social network. Sadly probably there will be much more negative impacts of having this ability than positive ones.

Everybody's going to get more similar in terms of topic. Bitcoin actually exists now. There's more to say about it than there was at launch. But does anyone still sound like Satoshi? Or sound more like Satoshi than they did before?

The slight wrench in the works is that it's hard to do this with my personal favorite Satoshi candidate. He stopped writing altogether in 2014, and lost capacity from shortly after the whitepaper came out until he was writing with his eyes by the time he had his head frozen.

He's also the only candidate who seems more likely to me over time, though. The longer things go, the less likely a living person stays tight-lipped.

the article here isn't about the LLM recognizing works that were in the training data. EG, The Old Man and the Sea off the shelf. It's about pegging the author of novel texts, like, say, some letter written by Hemmingway that gets discovered next week and was never before digitized.

But I'm sure the scanning operations will start scouring the earth even harder for any books unaffected by slop containing niche knowledge and text in order for their models to have an edge over the ones trained only on pirate collections and the Internet.

I wonder if secondhand bookshops and deceased estates are seeing bulk buyers of their stock suddenly appearing. Maybe broke governments/municipalities will start selling them entire libraries and archives to ingest.

You can get something of an intuitive sense of what I mean if I ask you to pick a neuron in your brain and tell me when it fires. You can't even pick a neuron in your brain. You can't even tell whether a broad section of your brain is firing. It is only through scientific examination that we have any idea what parts of the brain are doing what; we certainly have no direct access to that information. There are entire cultures who thought the seat of cognition was the heart or the gut. That's how bad our access to our own neural processes is.

So "why" explanations always need to be taken with a grain of salt when a neural net (again, yes, fully including humans) tries to "explain" what it is doing.

Contrast this with a symbolic reasoner, which has nothing but "why" some claim is true (if it yields the full logic train as its answer and not just "yes"/"no"), no pathway for any other form of information to emerge.

I've done this a few times. A world with 0 privacy would definitely be safe (given benign governance), but also would likely be pretty boring. Crime would become a non-issue as everything about everyone being easily known/knowable by everyone else means the root of any given crime, some desire/need, could be brought to the fore and resolved before it became an actual issue. But also there would no longer be any kind of surprise in anything; everything and everyone would essentially become dull and grey, and humanity isn't about that kind of life experience at all.

Given those precautions if it is just memory or some form of deanonymization that's also cause for concern.

TrueCrypt, “replaced” by VeraCrypt which Internet people will claim is backdoored? I haven’t heard about stylometry paper.

btw w/this idea would want to avoid typing into a comment field directly, since the session recorders would capture it (although that’s a different risk - same as our identifiable behavior patterns with our mouse etc.)

> To avoid this, you will probably need to intentionally write in a very different style than you usually do (or to have AIs rewrite all your prose for you, but, ugh, that’s not a world I look forward to living in).

I agree. The amount of vague and cliche'd AI writing I read on the daily is already exhausting enough.

It would be interesting if you could train a model to sprinkle random red herrings throughout your text in a minimally disruptive way. But I fear you might have to stretch the definition of "minimally disruptive" to make it robust against detection.

Kelsey knows this:

To make sure it wasn’t somehow feeding my account information to Claude even in Incognito Mode, I asked a friend to run these tests on his computer, and he received the same result; I also got the same result when I tested it through the API.

When I tested this with my own writing several LessWrong commenters tested it with the snippets I provided (see comments) and saw that it could identify me: https://www.jefftk.com/p/automated-deanonymization-is-here

How exactly does their post insinuate that? this comment is the "I don't even see color" as applied to internet privacy (with a touch of "just don't rub it in our faces")

Similar support for abortion being legal yet that was rolled back not too long ago.

Just because a topic has wide support doesn’t mean it’s not under attack and worth defending.

I don't know why you added statistics (you didn't really make a point with them?), but assuming you meant "gay people don't really need to worry", you actually bolstered the opposite argument. If only 71% of Americans support gay rights, that means 59 million people think the state should criminalize him. Try to put yourself in that position. 59 million people - you don't know who, but you know they probably live in your community - that don't want you to be able to get married, have a significant other, or have any PDA in media because it would "corrupt" kids. In 2016, 49 people were murdered in the Pulse Nightclub because they were gay. In 2020, a transgender woman was murdered because the murderer was afraid someone would think he was gay. Every year there are acts of violence against gay and trans people because of their sexuality. But nobody has ever been killed for being straight.

Given that the author didn't say any of the things you claimed, and indeed said the opposite, it leads one to conclude you have a problem with the example used.

Per you, it surely must be important to fewer than 71% of Americans, no? The state of infringement on privacy seems to evidence that it's not so important to a lot of people such that they continue to be perfectly willing to elect and re-elect the politicians who enact the changes allowing infringing on it/fail to legislate in favor of privacy. Connecting it to an issue more people care about seems an attempt to argue for its important to those who otherwise are willing to look the other way.

FWIW, I fed my reply above into Claude and asked it to guess who wrote it. It refused (for safety) while also calling me out: "The style here (tight logical structure, the "per you" construction, the move of turning someone's own framing back on them) is common across a lot of contrarian-leaning commenters on HN"

That phrase is a dehumanizing, Nazi-style talking point: it frames a group of people as a “lifestyle” problem instead of as human beings, which is a common setup for stigma and persecution. Nazi ideology repeatedly used this kind of language to normalize hatred and make targeted groups seem unnatural or dangerous.

Calling people a “minority lifestyle” is not neutral wording; it reduces identity to something frivolous or deviant. Extremist movements have historically used similar framing to make prejudice sound reasonable and to recruit others into it.