[jerf]

I fed an unpublished draft of mine to an AI. I saw it searching the internet and prompted it with the fact it could stop searching, it was not published. From there it guessed that it was me on the spot, which I thought was kind of funny. Can't deny the meta-logic there.

It referred to me by my login name on the AI site rather than the name it would have used if it actually found my website, so I think it was more logic than an actual identification, but it had clearly corrupted the search enough to no longer be a valid test.

Which does make me wonder about the original article; if the AI has in context any sort of clue that the user is "Kelsey Piper" (a memory of their name, a username of kpiper or kelseyp, etc.), that will radically tip the balance in favor of the AI guessing that way just by the nature of LLMs. That is to say, it highly increases the odds of that guess even if it's wrong.

Even if that is the case, though, the general identifiability of writing remains true. It's been shown for a while with techniques a lot less powerful than a frontier LLM.

[cg505]

The author specifically discusses their efforts to avoid this sort of information leak which would obviously poison the result.

[furyofantares]

She says she used incognito mode, as well as the API, as well as having a friend use their account.