To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.To revist this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories.Alistair CrollOnly a few months ago, AI content was easy to spot: unnatural inflections in speech, weird earlobes in photos, bland language in writing. This is no longer the case. In June, scammers used an AI to impersonate a daughter’s voice and rob her mother. Candidates are already using deepfakes as propaganda. And LLMs may help spammers by automating the otherwise costly back-and-forth conversations needed to separate a mark from their money. We need a way to distinguish things made by humans from things made by algorithms, and we need it very soon.A universal way to tell Human-generated content from AI-generated content would mitigate many of the concerns people have about this burgeoning technology. Consumers of generative text could “reveal AI” to quickly see what was written by a machine. Software companies could add AI markup awareness to their products, changing the way we find, replace, copy, paste, and share content. Governments could agree to buy generative AI only from companies that mark their output in this way, creating considerable market incentives. Teachers could insist that students leave the markings intact to leverage the power of generative AI while still showing their original thought. And brands that want to be “AI transparent” could promise not to remove the marker, making non-GPT the new non-GMO.Alistair Croll is an author, entrepreneur, and conference organizer. He cofounded the web performance startup Coradiant, the Year One Labs accelerator, and the FWD50 digital government conference. He chaired the world’s leading conference on data science and Strata, and served as a visiting executive at Harvard Business School. Alistair is the author of three books on technology and business, including the best-selling Lean Analytics, and is currently working on Just Evil Enough, a playbook for subversive thinking.Fortunately, we have a solution waiting in plain sight. But to understand the elegance of this relatively simple hack, let’s first look at the alternatives and why they won’t work.Both legislators and tech firms agree that the best way to distinguish AI-generated content from content made by humans is to mark it at the point of origin, something seven tech firms pledged to do as part of an agreement the White House announced last week. There are three broad approaches to watermarking digital content. The first is to add metadata, which cameras have been doing for decades. Blocks of text are often marked up as well. When you type something in bold, or set a font’s color on a website, the word processor or browser labels your content with metadata. But it’s application-specific: Paste some bold text into your address bar, and the formatting is gone.You can also watermark digital images using steganography, which hides one message inside another cryptographically. First used by spies to smuggle secrets, there are now plenty of design tools that add hidden markings to images, then crawl the web looking for copyright violators. And encryption works for watermarking too. You can digitally sign a paragraph of text, and then tell when it’s been altered, either through a centralized system (a digital certificate authority) or a distributed one (a blockchain). This is why that movie you bought only plays in iTunes, and that NFT you’ve forgotten about still belongs to you.But these approaches have three fundamental problems. First, they require immense coordination. By contrast, a good AI markup solution would need to work seamlessly across billions of devices. The markings would have to survive being copied and pasted from one app, operating system, or platform to another. Second, any solution would have to be accessible to any human with an internet connection, without any training, immediately. It would need to be deployable to the whole world with just a software update.Third, while watermarks work well enough for large objects like images, songs, or book chapters, they don’t work for smaller objects like individual words or letters. That means these approaches don’t handle content that blends human and machine well. If you have a document that’s generated by an AI, and then edited by a human, you need a more fine-grained watermark—the digital equivalent of a highlighter.That may seem like an impossibly tall order. But in fact, this system already exists: Unicode.Unicode is the universal numbering system for text, and text is the fundamental building block of the internet. In Unicode, every character has a number. The Latin Capital Letter A, for example, is hexadecimal number 41. But there are plenty of other A’s in Unicode: There’s Fullwidth Latin Capital Letter A (Ａ, number EF BC A1), Mathematical Bold Capital A (𝐀, number F0 9D 90 80), Mathematical Sans-Serif Capital A (𝖠, F0 9D 96 A0), and plenty of others. Each A has its own name, its own Unicode value, and in some cases, its own font shape. Why not create a letter A just for AI?Laurence RussellSelena LarsonKhari JohnsonMatt KamenUnlike metadata, which is attached to content, the unicode value is the content. If the companies who pledged to watermark AI content at the point of origin do so using Unicode—essentially giving AI its own character set—we’ll have a ready-made, fine-grained AI watermark that works across all devices, platforms, operating systems, and websites.It’s important to note that this proposed markup is not an enforcement mechanism. Bad actors could easily convert AI text to look like it was written by a human. A recipient still needs to trust a sender in order to believe what is marked up. But that’s one of the strengths of this approach. Once text is marked, a human has to actively remove the AI marker at some stage between the LLM and the consumer. We have legal mechanisms to investigate and deal with negligence or wrongdoing. The proposed protocol simply lets us apply these to AI.This hack has its limitations, of course. There’s a finite amount of room in Unicode, and many languages to support. Also, some text-to-speech tools may not read Unicode variants aloud, making this article confusing for those who are listening to it. These things need to be addressed. But Unicode offers a ready-made approach that’s already widely adopted. We designed it so that all humans could use the internet; we can also use it to coexist with AI.What’s more, the companies who steer the future of Unicode—the Unicode Consortium—are many of the same tech giants at the core of generative AI, and three of them just promised to watermark AI content.We have labels for the things we put in our bodies. We should care as much about what we put in our minds. This proposal represents a reasonable, practical, nonpartisan first step down that path—one that can change the way billions of humans consume information with just a software update.WIRED Opinion publishes articles by outside contributors representing a wide range of viewpoints. Read more opinions here. Submit an op-ed at [email protected].📧 Get the best stories from WIRED’s iconic archive in your inbox🎧 Our new podcast wants you to Have a Nice FutureMeet the psychedelic boom’s first respondersCritical Role lays out the next era in tabletop gamesTo save itself, Hollywood must build its own ChatGPTThe world isn’t sold on folding phones. But they’ll keep comingAn abandoned arctic military base just spilled a scientific secret🌞 See if you take a shine to our picks for the best sunglasses and sun protectionSuresh VenkatasubramanianVittoria ElliottBenjamin Charles Germain LeeDavid BrinRoger McNameeKC ColeTim HwangHossein DerakhshanMore From WIREDContact© 2023 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement and Your California Privacy Rights. WIRED may earn a portion of sales from products that are purchased through our site as part of our Affiliate Partnerships with retailers. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Condé Nast. Ad Choices