The Whole Premise Of Checking For Human Writing Is Daft

Skip to content

July 25, 2026

The Whole Premise Of Checking For Human Writing Is Daft

Mo Shehu, PhD

Authorship lives in ideas, judgment, and responsibility, not in whether every word was typed by hand.

Table of contents

I understand why people want you to write; because it’s good for you, because it focuses a wandering thought, because the first sentence is usually rubbish and the seventh is often better, because you learn cadence and structure and argument through repetition, because there are things you don’t know you believe until you try to explain them, and because spending an afternoon wrestling a stubborn idea into words can leave you with a stronger brain; but none of this explains why we’ve decided that the physical production of every word, one keystroke at a time, must now serve as a test of whether a thought is human.

It’s daft.

It takes one useful method of thinking and promotes it into the only respectable one. It confuses the exercise with the outcome, the labour with the intelligence, and the movement of fingers with the movement of a mind. It asks whether someone typed every word themselves when it should ask whether they had something useful to say, whether they understood it, whether they made the important decisions, whether they checked the claims, and whether they can defend the finished work when someone else asks what on earth they were talking about.

A person can type 3,000 words by hand and have no thought pass through their head beyond the need to finish before lunch. Another can dictate an idea, argue with a language model for an hour, reject six drafts, rearrange the whole piece, rewrite half of it, and publish something they understand down to the final comma. Under our emerging rules of literary customs inspection, the writing police see the first person as a human writer and the second as a suspicious package.

Fire

This feels like the sort of argument that must have appeared whenever we discovered a tool powerful enough to remove an old difficulty. I’ve always thought of artificial intelligence as fire, which means I can easily imagine some early band of homo erectus becoming completely unbearable about the possibilities, waking up every morning with another idea for what to burn, cook, harden, heat or illuminate, while another band watched from a neighbouring cave with growing alarm.

The second band would have had concerns. Cooked meat would weaken the naturally provided jaw. Warm fires would encourage young people to stay awake after sunset. Heating food would disturb the delicate flora of the ancestral belly. Artificial warmth would make the body dependent on external technology. Weapons hardened in flame would deskill the traditional sharpened-stick industry. Before long, nobody would remember the honourable craft of chewing raw antelope.

Some people would have been burned. Some fires would have escaped. Someone would certainly have set fire to the wrong patch of grass and spent the next morning explaining the outcome had been unintended. One band would’ve attacked another with fire, but the defenders would’ve also had fire, which levelled the playing field. The dangers would have been obvious, and the enthusiasts would have needed rules, better tools, and a growing respect for fire’s dangers.

What they wouldn’t have done is conclude that the existence of danger made warmth illegitimate.

We can see the absurdity because we live on the other side of the transformation. We know fire didn’t diminish humanity by relieving our jaws of some work. It expanded what humans could build, where they could live, what they could eat, and how long they could remain alive. The abilities we lost or used less often paled in comparison to what we gained.

Yet here we are in 2026, standing before another technology that can help millions of people explain, translate, calculate, code, study, design and create, and an influential part of the response has been to develop increasingly elaborate ways to prove that nobody received too much help.

The calculator was accused of weakening arithmetic. Search engines and maps were accused of weakening memory. Spellcheck was accused of weakening spelling. Photography was accused of weakening painting. Recorded music, sampling, digital illustration, coding frameworks, and predictive text have all spent some portion of their existence accused of allowing people to bypass the proper work. Eventually the tool becomes ordinary, the outrage moves on, and yesterday’s corruption becomes today’s menu option.

Privilege

The demand for proof of human writing is worse because it assumes a particular kind of human body.

Its model writer has two working hands, ten obedient fingers, good vision, fluent spelling, enough muscular control to operate a keyboard and a mind that can comfortably convert thought into polished prose through sustained typing. Anyone outside that model enters the...