One should assume that models will be good enough in the nearish future that privacy will be a thing of the past. Every anonymous post you made online can be traced back to you. However at that point AI will be good enough at fabrication that nobody will believe anything.
Yes as long as a large enough corpus exists of your writing attached to your name somehow it’s fair to say that posting on the internet in a public forum using your own stylistic choices now can no longer be anonymous. To your point though, perhaps it’s possible to confound such systems defensively as well. Though IMO destroying your tone kind of destroys how you actually communicate with people and I wouldn’t find interacting with people like that appealing.
To be fair though, already this has been happening before LLM at a much more limited scale. Someone made a tool for HN several years ago that allows you to put your HN username in and identifies other users that write the most similarly to you. I find that interesting from the perspective of being able to interact with and discover people who think the same. It could be an interesting discovery feature of a well managed social network. Sadly probably there will be much more negative impacts of having this ability than positive ones.
Wouldn't that make it easier, though? Genuine question.
I once sent one of my writings for proofreading to a native speaker (I'm not), and he consistently flagged the same errors—e.g., comma placement.
I would guess that, if recurrent patterns are what give away your style, an unfamiliar language would make them even more obvious. But possibly more generic?
If you are writing for an audience of native speakers, you will make consistent errors characteristic of your native language. (Comma placement isn't really part of the language; it's part of the education system. It will show a similar effect more weakly.)
Native readers will notice those errors, but they won't be characteristic of you. They'll be characteristic of everyone who speaks your language. Nonnative readers aren't likely to notice them at all.
I was imagining a setup like medieval Europe (where international communication is done in a language spoken by none of the parties, Latin) or Achaemenid Persia (where internal government communication is likewise done in a language not spoken by the administrators, Aramaic) or imperial China and its surrounding states (ditto, classical Chinese).
All of this communication is severely crimped by the fact that nobody involved is a native speaker. What happens is that certain fixed patterns from the original language get informally standardized and communication strongly prefers them to whatever alternatives a native speaker of the original language might have used. This lowers the mental burden on everyone.
It also produces extremely stilted and formalized prose, from all parties, which inhibits stylometry. If you only know one way to say something, you'll use it. If everyone else also only knows one way to say that same thing, you'll be anonymous.
(It's possible to study a foreign language past this point. But the overwhelming majority of people aren't going to do that.)
> Comma placement isn't really part of the language; it's part of the education system.
Interestingly, LLMs disagree with you.
Your statement is only accurate in an extremely narrow case, like if you were there to hear the person speaking, before their speech which was transcribed. Obviously, it is not true for almost all of human writing.
And if you were to go commaless, you will quickly get to rather precarious sentences, such as this one:
