arXiv preprint ·
Likelihood Is Not Authorship: Can We Reliably Measure Human Contribution in AI-Assisted Writing?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
AI-text detection generally asks whether a machine wrote a text. As AI becomes an increasingly integral and accepted part of writing, the more relevant question is no longer whether AI was used, but how much of the text reflects human contribution. A prominent line of work estimates this by measuring how predictive a person's prompt is of the final text. We show that this measure can be easily manipulated. We introduce SPECIFICITY PADDING that simply asks the model to copy a few random IDs from the prompt, and that alone makes a title-only request look more human than one that supplies the article's key ideas. A context-swap audit then holds each document fixed, and only shows or hides the IDs to the evaluator. The score of the unchanged text swings by a third to half of its scale, and it rises for every document we test, on news and scientific abstracts, across varied LLMs from 3.8B to 753B parameters. The same articles can average 85\% human or 15\% human depending only on which prompt is on record, and even with no prompt at all, the output-only variant rewards the random strings themselves. An exact identity, the credit ledger, explains why. The score is a surprisal-weighted average over the text, so rare strings that the context makes copyable collect the credit, whatever they mean. A two-point bound marks a deeper limit. If the prompt could have been machine-written, every transcript-only method must, in the worst case, miss by half the contribution at stake. Likelihood-based scores alone cannot reliably establish human contribution without evidence of what the person added and how the text was produced.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
TopicMerge: A Divide and Conquer Approach to Topic Modeling
Learning When to Think: Utility-Guided Adaptive Reasoning for Efficient Text Retrieval
LLM-jp-4 Technical Report
INCONVENIENT: A Benchmark to Assess LLM Generalization Capabilities from Convenience Samples
Counterfactual Gate-Support Decomposition: Separating Selection from Redistribution in Training-Data Filtering
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.