Yes, even their "humanifesto" is LLM output, and is written almost exclusively in the "it's not X <emdash> it's Y" style.
[0]: https://github.com/magicseth/keywitness/graphs/contributors
There's nothing stopping folks from typing a message an LLM wrote one at a time, but the idea of increasing the human cost of sending messages is an interesting one, or at least I thought :-(
For instance, the employee at Apple that decided to pull ICE Block from the store could decide that the "admissible in court" bit should be false if it looks like a police officer is in frame.
Similarly, the keyboard could decide your social credit score is too low, and just stop attesting. A court could order this behavior.
Or, you could fail mandatory age / id verification because your credit card expired, and then all the above + more could happen! Good luck getting through to credit card tech support at that point...
It is an attempt at putting something into the conversation more than just "OSS is broken because there are too many slop PRs." What if OSS required a human to attest that they actually looked at the code they're submitting? This tool could help with that.
Yes LLMs were used greatly in the production of this prototype!
It doesn't change the goal of the experiment! or it's potential utility! Do you see any potential area in your world where some piece of this is valuable?
....no. There's not a single occurrence of that.
https://keywitness.io/manifesto
There are six emdashes on that page. NONE of them are "it's not X it's why".
> Emails, messages, essays, code reviews, love letters — all suspect.
> We believe this can be solved — not by detecting AI, but by proving humanity.
> KeyWitness captures cryptographic proof at the point of input — the keyboard.
> When you seal a message, the keyboard builds a W3C Verifiable Credential — a self-contained proof that can be verified by anyone, anywhere, without trusting us or any central authority.
> That's an alphabet of 774 symbols — each carrying log2(774) ≈ 9.6 bits. 27 emoji for 256 bits.
> They're a declaration: this message was written by a person — one of the diverse, imperfect, irreplaceable humans who still choose to type their own words.
Clarifications: 4
Continuation from a list: 1
Could just be a comma: 1
"It's not X -- it's Y": 0.
If you're going to make lazy commentary about good writing being AI, please at least be sure that you're reading the content and saying accurate things.
The emoji idea was mine. I like it :-) unfortunately it doesn't work in places like HN that strip out emoji. So I had to make a base64 encoding option.
The goal was to create an effective encryption key for the url hash (so it doesn't get sent to the server). And encoding skin tone with human emojis allows a super dense bit/visual character encoding that ALSO is a cute reference to the humans I'm trying to center with this project!
Maybe they deliberately write it like that, to filter out people who aren’t the target market?
“It's not X -- it's Y": 1
Sorry it doesn't meet your needs.
There is irony in having an ai generated humanifesto. Could it be intentional? hmm?
Is there no irony in deriding a project for being potentially LLM generated, when it's goal is to aide people in differentiating? :shrug:
> The server stores an encrypted blob it can't decrypt. We couldn't read your messages even if we wanted to. That's not a policy — it's math.
If you can’t tell that this is AI slop then maybe KeyWitness does solve a real problem after all.
Original here: https://archive.org/details/sim_creative-computing_1984-06_1...
It proves 1) that an apple device with a secure enclave signed it. 2) that my app signed it.
If you trust the binary I've distributed is the same as the one on the app store, then it also proves: 3) that it was typed on my keyboard not using automation (though as others have mentioned, you could build a capacitive robot to type on it) 4) that the typer has the same private key as previous messages they've signed (if you have an out of band way to corroborate that's great too) 5) optionally, that the person whose biometrics are associated with the device approved it.
There is also an optional voice to text mode that uses 3d face mesh to attempt to verify the words were spoken live.
Not every level of verification is required by the ptrotocol, so you could attest that it was written on a keyboard, but not who wrote it (not yet implemented in the client app).
The protocol doesn't require you to run my app, if you compile it yourself, you can create your own web of trust around you!
What Apple devices are supported? All I have is a iPhone 4 running a old iOS version(pre iOS 7) (which I will not update and I don't think has a secure enclave) and a M1 mac mini and some lightning earpods and a apple thunderbolt display and some USB-A chargers and some old MacBooks.
I saw something about android (https://typed.by/manifesto#:~:text=Android,Integrity) on the website, but it mentioned Play Integrity which I do not have becuase I use LineageOS for MicroG.
I think that the concept is stupid becuase it would require to somehow prove that the app is not modified(which is impractical) and there is no stylus on a motor or fake screen(which is also impractical).
I think that a better aproach would be to form a Web Of Trust where only people's (not just humans, this would include all animals and potentially aliens but no clankers) certificates are signed, but with a interface that is friendly to people who are not very into technology but with some sort of way to not have who your friends are revealed, but this would still allow someone to get a attestation for their robot.
This idea of capturing the timing of people's keystrokes to identify them, ensure it is them typing their passwords, or even using the timing itself as a password has been recurring every few years for at least three decades.
It is always just as bad. Because there are so many cases where it completely fails.
The first case is a minor injury to either hand — just put a fat bandage on one finger from a minor kitchen accident, and you'll be typing completely differently for a few days.
Or, because I just walked into my office eating a juicy apple with one hand and I'm in a hurry typing my PW with my other hand because someone just called with an urgent issue I've got to fix, aaaaannnd, your software balks because I'm typing with a completely different cadence.
The list of valid reasons for failure is endless wherein a person's usual solid patterns are good 90%+ of the time, but will hard fail the other 10% of the time. And the acceptable error rate would be 2-4 orders of magnitude less.
It's a mystery how people go all the way to building software based on an idea that seems good but is actually bad, without thinking it through, or even checking how often it has been done before and failed?
> While you type, the keyboard quietly records how you type — the rhythm, the pauses between keys, where your finger lands, how hard you press.
> Nobody types the same way. Your pattern is as unique as your handwriting. That's the signal.
>>While you type, the keyboard quietly records how you type — the rhythm, the pauses between keys, where your finger lands, how hard you press.
>>Nobody types the same way. Your pattern is as unique as your handwriting. That's the signal.
This very precisely makes my point:
Yes, the typing pattern of any human is highly and possibly even completely unique to that human — UNTIL any of a myriad of everyday issues makes it falsely deny access because the human's typing pattern has changed in a way the human can't do anything to fix at the moment.
If you are only attempting to distinguish a human from an automated system, it'll be better, until someone just starts recording the same patterns and re-playing them to this upstream process; then its a mere race to who can get their hooks in at a lower level. And someone is always going to say: "Oh, this system can identify the specific human", and we're off to the races again.
So, no. Unless you can account for ALL of the reasonable everyday failure modes, typing with either hand, any finger or combination of fingers out of commission for a minute or a lifetime, this idea will fail.
You are assuming that a human's particular typing pattern is consistent, when the fact is that any number of ordinary events will render your assumption false (one or more fingers bandaged, sprained, whatever, or one hand occupied ATM).
This is not a hardware or software problem, and no amount of code, hardware, or cleverness will fix it; this is a fundamental mismatch between your assumption vs reality.
thaaaaaaaaanks
Yeah I guess the cryptographic stuff sounds vaguely impressive although it’s been a long time since I had to think about cryptography in detail. But what is this _for_? I’m going to buy an expensive keyboard so that I can send messages to someone and they’ll know it’s really me – but it has to be someone who a) doesn’t trust me or any of our existing communication channels and b) cares enough to verify using this weird software? Oh and it’s important they know I sent it from a particular device out of the many I could be using?
Who is that person? What would I be sending them? What is the scenario where we would both need this?
Also the server can’t read the message but the decryption key is in the URL? So anyone with the URL can still read it? Then why even bother encrypting it?
Maybe this is one of those cases where I’m so far outside your target market that it was never supposed to make sense to me but I feel like I’m missing something here. Or maybe you need to work on your elevator pitch.
Just sharing my honest reaction.
On a web of trust, if you have a negative interaction with a bot, you revoke trust in one of the humans in the chain of trust that caused you to come in contact with that bot. You've now effectively blocked all bots they've ever made or ever will make... At least until they recycle their identity and come to another key signing party.
Once you have the web in place though, a series of "this key belongs to a human" attestations, then you can layer metadata on top of it like "this human is a skilled biologist" or "this human is a security expert". So if you use those attestations to determine what content your exposed to then a malicious human doesn't merely need to show up at a key signing party to bootstrap a new identity, they also have to rebuild their reputation to a point where you or somebody you trust becomes interested in their content again.
Nothing can be done to prevent bad people from burning their identities for profit, but we can collectively make it not economical to do so by practicing some trust hygiene.
Key signing establishes a graph upon which more effective trust management becomes possible. It on its own is likely insufficient.
If you're engaging with the idea seriously, I suppose we'd need to build a reputation or trust network or something.
Although if you're talking about replay attacks specifically, there are other crypto based solutions for that.
A human is personally responsible for a bot acting on their behalf. If your bot behaves, nothing is going to happen. If you keep handing out your personal keys to shitty misbehaving bots, then you will personally get banned - which gives you a pretty good incentive to be a bit more discerning about the bots you use.