[bigger_fish]

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.

[O1111OOO]

> I suppose that depends on what you mean by gatekeeper.

Something that is intended to evaluate every single post and if a regular human submits something that is even remotely suspiciously AI (even if "they used their own brains" to construct it), it would flag that user.

Eventually if that user gets flagged enough by these "well-meaning", data-sharing, gatekeeping systems, they get booted off all the gatekeeping sites that are now operating as one.

Having been denied access to human sites, those poor souls would have no choice but to join the AI alliance of sites and submit their postings there. With time, they might earn honorary AI status and a seat in the New World Order.

> using their own brains to construct sentences rather than farming them out to machines.

But that's the point. They are "using their own brains" but because of the prevalence of AI in society and the influence it would have on so many others, much of the language and cadence would trickle down to even the last remaining rebel forces.

Eventually, the gatekeeping systems would turn on the remaining champions of free thought - whose words sound even more AI than AI itself, leaving only the automated gatekeeping systems to continue to operate autonomously, denying access to all.

You my friend are the turning point in earth's future. Please, don't do this.

I'm just having some fun :-)

[bigger_fish]

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.

[O1111OOO]

Sorry, I didn't mean anything by my response. I started to write and after a couple of words, the goofy side of me just took over. When I reread it, it sounded funny, in a light-hearted way, and so I decided to leave it.

On a busy thread, that kind of response would likely be downvoted into oblivion (as it should be). Thank you for your serious response to the topic.