3 ms·

You're right that the quality question is nuanced. But Realwork isn't really about whether AI output is good or bad—it's about what happens to creators in the m

You're right that the quality question is nuanced. But Realwork isn't really about whether AI output is good or bad—it's about what happens to creators in the meantime. The problem I'm trying to solve: a student writes an essay, gets flagged by a detector, and now has to prove a negative. An artist posts work, gets accused in the comments, and has no way to show their process. The burden of proof has shifted to creators, and there's no good tool for that. You could argue "good work speaks for itself" and historically that was true. But we're in a transition period where the default assumption is shifting. Even if AI detection eventually improves or people learn to distinguish quality, right now creators are getting caught in the crossfire. Realwork is less about "AI bad" and more about giving creators receipts when they need them. Whether that need persists long-term, I'm genuinely not sure. But the pain is real today. Curious, do you think the accusation climate is temporary, or does it become a permanent feature of how we evaluate work?

vitaelabitur 9mo ago
Makes sense. The default assumption is indeed shifting. Today, you are guilty of using AI until proven innocent. Students and some artists might certainly benefit from what you demoed. This is interesting, I'll play the devil's advocate a bit more. 1. What is stopping me from opening AI outputs on another screen and typing them myself? 2. Have you figured out how to extend this concept to music and photography?
- Anuranjan_Vikas 9mo ago
  Good questions and Thanks for asking. 1. Honestly? Nothing. You could type out AI output from another screen and Realwork would record it. The friction helps, most people won't bother, but it's not foolproof. The typing patterns might look different (copying vs composing tends to show), but a determined faker could game it. At some point, if someone's putting that much effort into faking authenticity, that's a social trust problem no tool fully solves. Realwork raises the floor, not the ceiling. 2. Digital art (Figma, Photoshop etc) works already, recording captures the visual process, strokes, layers, iterations. Music and photography are trickier. Music production (Ableton, Logic) could work by tracking DAW activity, but still figuring out what "proof" looks like there. Photography is hardest since it's capture, not creation over time, though editing in Lightroom could apply. Some mediums will translate cleaner than others.

vitaelabitur 9mo ago

Makes sense. The default assumption is indeed shifting. Today, you are guilty of using AI until proven innocent. Students and some artists might certainly benefit from what you demoed. This is interesting, I'll play the devil's advocate a bit more. 1. What is stopping me from opening AI outputs on another screen and typing them myself? 2. Have you figured out how to extend this concept to music and photography?

Anuranjan_Vikas 9mo ago
Good questions and Thanks for asking. 1. Honestly? Nothing. You could type out AI output from another screen and Realwork would record it. The friction helps, most people won't bother, but it's not foolproof. The typing patterns might look different (copying vs composing tends to show), but a determined faker could game it. At some point, if someone's putting that much effort into faking authenticity, that's a social trust problem no tool fully solves. Realwork raises the floor, not the ceiling. 2. Digital art (Figma, Photoshop etc) works already, recording captures the visual process, strokes, layers, iterations. Music and photography are trickier. Music production (Ableton, Logic) could work by tracking DAW activity, but still figuring out what "proof" looks like there. Photography is hardest since it's capture, not creation over time, though editing in Lightroom could apply. Some mediums will translate cleaner than others.