[ggm]

I assure you I am not lying. It would be hard to prove because even under invigilated writing you could argue the negatives were evidence I must have been in the prior case.

For others to test, try Dave Mills who worked on NTP and Jon Crowcroft, now Cambridge uni, both of whom had/have what you might call "idiosyncratic" styles of writing.

I'd go a lot further back than a few weeks in mine. I tend to comment in fits and starts. If you hunt for other times people said "why do you write like this it's stupid"

Btw don't try their corpus of formal writing, it's less likely to trigger. They wrote extensively in pre commercial internet mailing lists where I think you'd find the style of writing.

[hxugufjfjf]

I don't think you are lying and by no means am I accusing you of lying, or trying to "prove" that you could be. I just think we've discovered something interesting and I'm trying to make sense of it. It does appear on further testing that even minor tweaks to the way to write would easily tip your text from 99.98 AI to 99.98 % human. I can only conclude that the detecion model's numbers are unintentionally deceiving, because its a very fine line. Without more information about what "triggers" detection in the comment you made, I don't see a way to "get to the bottom" of this. I am trying to learn more about it now: https://huggingface.co/roberta-base-openai-detector

I did test those you suggested, with various excerpts from their mailing list communication, research and books. Both people got on avergage >99.98% probability of being real, both with large and small samples from all the different sources. I'm not sure what to make of this.

[ggm]

Hmm. I'd hoped either or both of them would tickle the same detection logic as me. I must be even more incoherent than I thought.

[ggm]

Further to this.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33938619