[throwaway219450]

Nevertheless this PoW is used by some conference venues now, in the case of a dispute against human authorship. NeurIPS does allow LLM use for "minor" polish like spelling, grammar, correcting non-native speakers. But you can't have the AI write the entire paper:

See https://blog.neurips.cc/2026/06/02/ai-generated-papers-in-th...

> Unfortunately, given the volume of submissions that appear non-compliant, relying on author declarations is insufficient.

...

> Authors whose submissions show significant AI involvement must provide an audit trail that clearly demonstrates that they complied with the policy. We expect that in future years this kind of audit trail will become a default.

The method uses Pangram, but that's somewhat arbitrary. The authors must provide the draft that was used to prompt the AI and show how the changes were made, which should be possible with a chat history. Where it doesn't work is if the authors claim they did not use AI, but otherwise it's quite hard to spoof. Edit history on its own isn't good enough because you could trivially have a program emulate keystrokes to type at a human speed into a document with tracked changes; the proof here accepts that AI was probably used and aims to determine to what extent.

I do think this goes back to if the text is high quality enough that humans don't notice, is that OK? Probably yes. What we don't want is poor quality writing from any source.