Were on sufficiently motivated to ensure anonymity, one would not be posting thousands of words of content associated with their government ID.
Even if one were still completely dead set on doing so, it's wrong to assume that it is impossible to sufficiently alter one's writing style while chatting with using the offending systems to anonymize oneself.
Take just the first sentence: "I am, myself, passionately and slightly fanatically on the pro-anonymity side." There are several stylistic choice that are made and re-used throughout the article. First person voicing, redundant adjectives and adverbs, etc.
Compare that to "I believe in anonymity" or "Anonymity is good" or "My preference leans toward anonymity". Or even "I emphatically believe in anonymity as an inalienable human right."
There are so many long sentences, so many "if this then that" statements, so many repetitions of the same point in different words... If all the content from this writer is as self-same as this article itself is, why should it not be expected that one could identify it?
We've been de-anonymizing authors since before LLMs, and some authors have indeed been able to write anonymously by sufficiently changing their style.
I mean, compare:
~~~
This is some student work, shared with the student’s permission (they reviewed this blog post and gave it the okay). These three assignments (writing about a student-chosen topic, in this case Pokemon) show the student’s progression over the course of two months after we decided to focus with this student on developing their writing skills. The first one I would say is about first-grade level work: the student is writing correct and complete sentences, but the sentences are simple; their handwriting is mostly legible with a few problem letters. The second one I would say is about second-grade level work: the student is writing longer and more varied sentences, with a range of constructions “Perhaps it was sneaking up on prey?”. They’re attempting more complicated vocabulary words (I’m told that a misspelled word at the top of the page was meant to be ‘roguish’.)
~~~
to
~~~
With the learner’s explicit consent and a final review of this post, I am pleased to share a window into their academic growth. These three pieces—centered on the student’s personal interest in Pokémon—chart a two-month trajectory of intensive literacy development.
The evolution of their craft is summarized below:
Initial Baseline (First-Grade Equivalent): The student began by producing complete, accurate, yet rudimentary sentences. While the work was communicative, the syntax remained basic, and penmanship was transitional, containing a handful of inconsistent letter forms.
Intermediate Progress (Second-Grade Equivalent): Following a targeted focus on composition, the student’s work shifted toward greater syntactic variety. They began experimenting with inquisitive structures (e.g., “Perhaps it was sneaking up on prey?”) and more sophisticated vocabulary. Notably, an early attempt at the word "roguish" demonstrates a willingness to engage with complex language beyond their previous comfort zone.
~~~
You see how there's much less "I think this/I would say this", a clearer structure, etc? I don't have opus, so I'd be very interested to see if the rewrite is identifiable as the author.
This is a bit defeatist, isn't it?
Were on sufficiently motivated to ensure anonymity, one would not be posting thousands of words of content associated with their government ID.
Even if one were still completely dead set on doing so, it's wrong to assume that it is impossible to sufficiently alter one's writing style while chatting with using the offending systems to anonymize oneself.
Take just the first sentence: "I am, myself, passionately and slightly fanatically on the pro-anonymity side." There are several stylistic choice that are made and re-used throughout the article. First person voicing, redundant adjectives and adverbs, etc.
Compare that to "I believe in anonymity" or "Anonymity is good" or "My preference leans toward anonymity". Or even "I emphatically believe in anonymity as an inalienable human right."
There are so many long sentences, so many "if this then that" statements, so many repetitions of the same point in different words... If all the content from this writer is as self-same as this article itself is, why should it not be expected that one could identify it?
We've been de-anonymizing authors since before LLMs, and some authors have indeed been able to write anonymously by sufficiently changing their style.
I mean, compare: ~~~ This is some student work, shared with the student’s permission (they reviewed this blog post and gave it the okay). These three assignments (writing about a student-chosen topic, in this case Pokemon) show the student’s progression over the course of two months after we decided to focus with this student on developing their writing skills. The first one I would say is about first-grade level work: the student is writing correct and complete sentences, but the sentences are simple; their handwriting is mostly legible with a few problem letters. The second one I would say is about second-grade level work: the student is writing longer and more varied sentences, with a range of constructions “Perhaps it was sneaking up on prey?”. They’re attempting more complicated vocabulary words (I’m told that a misspelled word at the top of the page was meant to be ‘roguish’.) ~~~
to
~~~ With the learner’s explicit consent and a final review of this post, I am pleased to share a window into their academic growth. These three pieces—centered on the student’s personal interest in Pokémon—chart a two-month trajectory of intensive literacy development.
The evolution of their craft is summarized below:
~~~You see how there's much less "I think this/I would say this", a clearer structure, etc? I don't have opus, so I'd be very interested to see if the rewrite is identifiable as the author.