Uncertainty in Authorship: Why Perfect AI Detection Is Mathematically Impossible

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.11915v1
• Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 13:33:32 GMT
• Title: Uncertainty in Authorship: Why Perfect AI Detection Is Mathematically Impossible
• Abstract summary: We argue that there is a fundamental trade-off: the more confidently one tries to identify whether a text was written by a human or an AI, the more one risks disrupting the text's natural flow and authenticity.<n>Our analysis shows that when AI-generated text closely mimics human writing, perfect detection becomes not just technologically difficult but theoretically impossible.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) become more advanced, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between human-written and AI-generated text. This paper draws a conceptual parallel between quantum uncertainty and the limits of authorship detection in natural language. We argue that there is a fundamental trade-off: the more confidently one tries to identify whether a text was written by a human or an AI, the more one risks disrupting the text's natural flow and authenticity. This mirrors the tension between precision and disturbance found in quantum systems. We explore how current detection methods--such as stylometry, watermarking, and neural classifiers--face inherent limitations. Enhancing detection accuracy often leads to changes in the AI's output, making other features less reliable. In effect, the very act of trying to detect AI authorship introduces uncertainty elsewhere in the text. Our analysis shows that when AI-generated text closely mimics human writing, perfect detection becomes not just technologically difficult but theoretically impossible. We address counterarguments and discuss the broader implications for authorship, ethics, and policy. Ultimately, we suggest that the challenge of AI-text detection is not just a matter of better tools--it reflects a deeper, unavoidable tension in the nature of language itself.

Related papers

• 'Your AI Text is not Mine': Redefining and Evaluating AI-generated Text Detection under Realistic Assumptions [50.1119556361129]
  We systematically define various notions of AI-generated text and their characteristics.<n>AITDNA is a new benchmark of human-machine co-constructed texts.<n>We benchmark various machine-generated text detectors and find that they often only perform well for specific notions but not as broad detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-03T14:05:14Z)
• Diversity Boosts AI-Generated Text Detection [51.56484100374058]
  DivEye is a novel framework that captures how unpredictability fluctuates across a text using surprisal-based features.<n>Our method outperforms existing zero-shot detectors by up to 33.2% and achieves competitive performance with fine-tuned baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T10:21:22Z)
• AuthorMist: Evading AI Text Detectors with Reinforcement Learning [4.806579822134391]
  AuthorMist is a novel reinforcement learning-based system to transform AI-generated text into human-like writing.<n>We show that AuthorMist effectively reduces the detectability of AI-generated text while preserving the original meaning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T12:41:05Z)
• Almost AI, Almost Human: The Challenge of Detecting AI-Polished Writing [55.2480439325792]
  This study systematically evaluations twelve state-of-the-art AI-text detectors using our AI-Polished-Text Evaluation dataset.<n>Our findings reveal that detectors frequently flag even minimally polished text as AI-generated, struggle to differentiate between degrees of AI involvement, and exhibit biases against older and smaller models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:45:37Z)
• ExaGPT: Example-Based Machine-Generated Text Detection for Human Interpretability [62.285407189502216]
  Detecting texts generated by Large Language Models (LLMs) could cause grave mistakes due to incorrect decisions.<n>We introduce ExaGPT, an interpretable detection approach grounded in the human decision-making process.<n>We show that ExaGPT massively outperforms prior powerful detectors by up to +40.9 points of accuracy at a false positive rate of 1%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T01:15:07Z)
• DAMAGE: Detecting Adversarially Modified AI Generated Text [0.13108652488669736]
  We show that many existing AI detectors fail to detect humanized text.<n>We demonstrate a robust model that can detect humanized AI text while maintaining a low false positive rate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T23:43:49Z)
• Towards Possibilities & Impossibilities of AI-generated Text Detection: A Survey [97.33926242130732]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized the domain of natural language processing (NLP) with remarkable capabilities of generating human-like text responses. Despite these advancements, several works in the existing literature have raised serious concerns about the potential misuse of LLMs. To address these concerns, a consensus among the research community is to develop algorithmic solutions to detect AI-generated text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-23T18:11:32Z)
• On the Possibilities of AI-Generated Text Detection [76.55825911221434]
  We argue that as machine-generated text approximates human-like quality, the sample size needed for detection bounds increases. We test various state-of-the-art text generators, including GPT-2, GPT-3.5-Turbo, Llama, Llama-2-13B-Chat-HF, and Llama-2-70B-Chat-HF, against detectors, including oBERTa-Large/Base-Detector, GPTZero.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-10T17:47:39Z)
• Paraphrasing evades detectors of AI-generated text, but retrieval is an effective defense [56.077252790310176]
  We present a paraphrase generation model (DIPPER) that can paraphrase paragraphs, condition on surrounding context, and control lexical diversity and content reordering. Using DIPPER to paraphrase text generated by three large language models (including GPT3.5-davinci-003) successfully evades several detectors, including watermarking. We introduce a simple defense that relies on retrieving semantically-similar generations and must be maintained by a language model API provider.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-23T16:29:27Z)
• Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? [50.95804851595018]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) perform impressively well in various applications.<n>The potential for misuse of these models in activities such as plagiarism, generating fake news, and spamming has raised concern about their responsible use.<n>We stress-test the robustness of these AI text detectors in the presence of an attacker.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-17T17:53:19Z)
• Is This Abstract Generated by AI? A Research for the Gap between AI-generated Scientific Text and Human-written Scientific Text [13.438933219811188]
  We investigate the gap between scientific content generated by AI and written by humans. We find that there exists a writing style'' gap between AI-generated scientific text and human-written scientific text.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-24T04:23:20Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.