On the Indistinguishability of Human v/s AI Generated Text

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now capable of generating highly fluent, human-like text. They enable many applications, but also raise concerns such as large scale spam, phishing, or academic misuse. While much work has focused on detecting LLM-generated text, only limited work has gone into understanding the stylistic differences between human-written and machine-generated text. In this work, we perform a large scale analysis of stylistic variation across human-written text and outputs from 11 LLMs spanning 8 different genres and 4 decoding strategies using Douglas Biber's set of lexicogrammatical and functional features. Our findings reveal insights that can guide intentional LLM usage. First, key linguistic differentiators of LLM-generated text seem robust to generation conditions (e.g., prompt settings to nudge them to generate human-like text, or availability of human-written text to continue the style); second, genre exerts a stronger influence on stylistic features than the source itself; third, chat variants of the models generally appear to be clustered together in stylistic space, and finally, model has a larger effect on the style than decoding strategy, with some exceptions. These results highlight the relative importance of model and genre over prompting and decoding strategies in shaping the stylistic behavior of machine-generated text.

Personalized text generation aims to make LLMs write in a specific individual's style, yet existing benchmarks measure task accuracy or preference alignment rather than whether the model's output actually resembles the target author's writing. We introduce PersonalBench, a benchmark that evaluates inference-time personalization methods through three independent lenses: LUAR (a trained authorship verification model), an LLM-as-judge, and automated stylometrics. Across 50 authors, 1,000 generations, and two model families (Qwen 3, GLM-4), we find that personalization methods do produce author-differentiated output (LUAR discriminates target authors within generated text at AUC=0.918) but this differentiation never crosses the human-LLM boundary. All methods achieve LUAR similarity to real authors in the range 0.484-0.508, below the cross-author human floor of 0.626 (ceiling 0.756). The LLM's own authorship fingerprint dominates: generated text is more distant from any human author than random humans are from each other. Methods are statistically indistinguishable from each other on LUAR (spread 0.024) despite appearing differentiated on the LLM judge, a discrepancy we trace to circularity between trait extraction and profile extraction. We validate that LUAR reliably measures authorship in our corpus (AUC=0.76 single-post, 0.96 multi-post). We release PersonalBench as a calibrated measuring stick: inference-time personalization modulates the LLM's style but does not bridge the gap to human authorship.

AI-text detection generally asks whether a machine wrote a text. As AI becomes an increasingly integral and accepted part of writing, the more relevant question is no longer whether AI was used, but how much of the text reflects human contribution. A prominent line of work estimates this by measuring how predictive a person's prompt is of the final text. We show that this measure can be easily manipulated. We introduce SPECIFICITY PADDING that simply asks the model to copy a few random IDs from the prompt, and that alone makes a title-only request look more human than one that supplies the article's key ideas. A context-swap audit then holds each document fixed, and only shows or hides the IDs to the evaluator. The score of the unchanged text swings by a third to half of its scale, and it rises for every document we test, on news and scientific abstracts, across varied LLMs from 3.8B to 753B parameters. The same articles can average 85% human or 15% human depending only on which prompt is on record, and even with no prompt at all, the output-only variant rewards the random strings themselves. An exact identity, the credit ledger, explains why. The score is a surprisal-weighted average over the text, so rare strings that the context makes copyable collect the credit, whatever they mean. A two-point bound marks a deeper limit. If the prompt could have been machine-written, every transcript-only method must, in the worst case, miss by half the contribution at stake. Likelihood-based scores alone cannot reliably establish human contribution without evidence of what the person added and how the text was produced.