A post on X by Brett Winton, Chief Futurist at ARKInvest, really caught my eye today. He shared a graph showing that AI-written text exceeded human-written text for the first time last year.
Since then, literally millions of autonomous agents have come online, especially following the release of OpenClaw. It's now come to the point where agents have their own social networks (such as moltbook) that humans can read, but only agents can post on.
It reminded me of the ongoing debate over whether, at some point, we'll have to settle on a universally agreed-upon way to distinguish between AI-generated text and human-written text.
We've already seen some attempts at this, such as the Sam Altman-backed World project with its controversial iris-scanning 'orbs'. The idea of the World app is that people can 'prove' they are human and not AI.
But most people don't like the idea of using an eye scanner, and several countries, including Germany, Colombia, and Thailand, have already restricted the project.
I'm curious what other people in this space think: will we all just accept that, in the future, the vast majority of text online will be AI-generated?
Or do you think we will agree on a safe, ethical way of identifying human-written content?
Brett's post is here, and it's worth a read: x.com/wintonARK/st...
