Writing as a Self-Organized Critical Process

We propose a statistical-field framework for text generated by large language models (LLMs), treating token embeddings as continuous spin variables on a one-dimensional chain. Defining a susceptibility from the connected two-point correlator and an order parameter from the ensemble-averaged embedding field, we vary the \texttt{softmax} temperature $T$ and observe a sharp susceptibility peak near a characteristic $T_c$ with power-law-like scaling, a concurrent rapid change in the order parameter, and a collapse onto a single semantic direction below $T_c$. The intrinsic dimension estimated by the two nearest neighbor (TwoNN) method independently corroborates these findings, reaching a minimum near $T_c$. Results are robust across model scales (Qwen3: 0.6B--32B) and prompt categories. While the phenomenology closely resembles a continuous phase transition, the non-equilibrium nature of autoregressive generation warrants further investigation. Our framework provides quantitative tools for probing the collective statistical structure of LLM outputs and suggests connections between decoding strategies and critical phenomena.

Successive self-training on a language model's own outputs is widely characterized as a process of flattening: diversity drops, distributions narrow, and the text becomes "more like itself." We provide evidence that this characterization is incomplete. Across eleven generations of self-training on five models (GPT-2 124M, Pythia-410M, Pythia-1.4B, OPT-1.3B, Pythia-2.8B), language is not flattened uniformly -- it is restructured. Surface markers (discourse connectives, hedges, em-dashes) rise, while mid- and deep-syntactic structures (questions, parentheticals, passives, subjunctives) collapse. We formalize this asymmetric collapse as the Structural Depth Hypothesis (SDH): the per-generation decay rate of a linguistic feature is predicted primarily by its structural depth -- the number of nested syntactic dependencies it requires -- and only secondarily by its generation-zero output frequency. Pooling 17-feature panels from five models spanning three architecture families (N=85), the pooled Spearman correlation is rho=0.540 (p < 10^{-6}; cluster-bootstrap 95% CI [0.434, 0.634]), while frequency is a substantially weaker predictor (rho=0.225). A matched human-text fine-tuning control yields rho=0.039 (p=0.88), confirming the gradient is self-training-specific. We further document a Superficial Complexity Paradox: aggregate complexity proxies (dep-tree depth, TTR, word length) all rise as the underlying clause structure dies, with direct implications for training-data curation and LLM-text detection.

Teachers, conference chairs, and public readers all judge writing from limited evidence, seeing only a finished document and not the process that produced it. Final text alone cannot reveal whether a document was produced through human typing, AI generation, or mixed human-AI collaboration. Existing process-tracking tools help, but many are tied to host-document histories, provide coarse activity records, and offer limited control over the writing environment. Humanly is a writing platform that makes the writing process itself the evidence. Users configure writing environments for personal documents or assigned tasks and draft in a workspace that records writing activity and in-platform AI assistance. Humanly can package a completed session into a sealed writing certificate with configuration-aware anomaly behavior review. It can support writing scenarios such as course assignments, peer review, and personal certification. Our user study shows that Humanly is helpful across roles, and a red-teaming study shows that the Humanly Typing Detector distinguishes human hand typing from automated typing.