{"slug": "how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai", "title": "How to Prove That Your Writing is Not AI", "summary": "Authors who fear being falsely accused of using AI face a daunting challenge: there is no foolproof way to prove human authorship, according to a new analysis by Plagiarism Today. The article highlights the case of Jerry Falade, whose $2 million book deal with Minotaur Books was canceled over AI allegations, and reviews tools like Google Docs, Draftback, and Grammarly Authorship as partial solutions. However, the author concludes that no current solution is 100% reliable, leaving writers vulnerable in an era of AI suspicion.", "body_md": "# How to Prove That Your Writing is Not AI\n\nLast week, [ the story of Jerry Falade shook the writing world](https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/08/05/author-loses-2-million-book-deal-over-ai-allegations/).\n\nHis debut novel, *Call Me, I’ll Hide the Body*, had been picked up by Minotaur Books in a deal worth at least $2 million. However, even as his book was being shopped to movie studios and international publishers, his agents pulled it, claiming that they could no longer “substantiate” how the book was written.\n\nFalade completely denies using AI to write his book. Though he admitted to using AI to research some elements, he claims the writing was all his own.\n\nMany authors asked themselves the obvious question: If I were in Falade’s position, how would I prove that my writing was not AI-generated?\n\nSadly, there are no good answers to that question. AI detection tools, even at their best, make mistakes. One can always show their notes and their research, but that can be easily faked. If you were pressed, with millions of dollars on the line, could you prove that your writing was not AI-generated?\n\nThe answer is probably no.\n\nSo, over the past week or so, I’ve been scouring the internet to find solutions to this problem. Though I have found some interesting ideas and maybe a path forward, I’ve not found a solution that is 100% ready to go right now.\n\nStill, I have a feeling that I’ll either be updating this post or writing follow-up posts on this topic in the near future. This is a space where a lot is going on and it would be more than easy to miss something.\n\nThat being said, here’s a look at what is available right now and what authors can do to help themselves should they be accused of using AI in their writing.\n\n#### The Low-Hanging Fruit\n\nThe first and most obvious thing a human writer should do is ensure that they are working in a space that has strong version control. This will allow you to easily track the changes to your document and show how it came together over time.\n\nTo that end, Google Docs is probably the best tool for this job, with Microsoft Word being a close second. Not only do both provide good versioning, but they are also compatible with [Grammarly Authorship](https://www.grammarly.com/authorship), a tool by Grammarly that tracks not just changes, but where content is coming from.\n\n*( Note: Some schools may offer Turnitin Clarity as an alternative, but that is limited to the institutions that have an agreement with Turnitin.)*\n\nHowever, I give the edge to Google Docs due to the [Draftback extension](https://draftback.com/). That tool allows teachers (as well as editors) to see how a documents was drafted and “playback” the writing process. The tool doesn’t collect any new data (like Grammarly Authorship does), but it provides an easy interface to see the data Google Docs stores on its end.\n\nAccording to their site, Draftback is already being used by over 500,000 users, mostly teachers.\n\nThis system is ideal because the data is stored by Google, giving it a third-party verification and making it much more difficult (though not impossible) to fake. Though many are understandably uncomfortable with the idea of Google holding this much data, it is the presence of a third party that makes the verification meaningful.\n\nThough there are many other apps that offer a versioning system, if the version history is not stored by a third party, it makes it much more difficult to verify.\n\nBut while these tools are easy to implement, they aren’t suitable for all authors. That’s particularly true for authors like Falade, who are working on much longer projects.\n\n#### The Cottage Industry\n\nAs one might expect, in an era of uncertainty, there are several companies and products that are trying to fill that gap. As such, there’s been a multitude of tools and products targeting this space, each with a slightly different approach.\n\nPossibly the most robust example is [Vellumproof](https://vellumproof.com/) (not to be confused with the book design tool named Vellum). In the most basic version of Vellumproof, you can simply upload your document and it will provide you with a timestamp verification of that document. Then, as you edit it and write more on it, you upload those drafts at regular intervals and it’s easy to see how a document changed over time.\n\nHowever, Vellumproof also offers its own built-in editor which tracks your typing, pasting and other actions. Documents written there are automatically saved to the chain. This can provide an extra layer of evidence to show that your work is not AI-generated. That said, their editor is extremely basic. While that may be ideal for some authors, others will likely struggle.\n\nIf you want a more robust editor, [ValidDraft](https://validdraft.com/) may be an interesting choice, it too works by watching your typing, mouse movements and edits to determine if the document you wrote in their editor is AI-generated. That said, the editor and structure focuses on shorter documents, so you may have to verify a longer document in sections or chapters.\n\n**Update/Correction 8/11/2026:** I received an email from the developer of ValidDraft. While everything that I said is accurate about the web editor, they have [added a new downloadable app](https://validdraft.com/download) that is made for longer documents. So this may be worth considering if you’re working on a longer document.\n\nAnother company, [OkHuman](https://okhuman.com/), offers similar tracking. However, the site is clearly in its early stages of development and is not available to the public. However, it stands out by offering the privacy of not reading the text that you type, just following the cadence of your typing.\n\nAlso noteworthy is [LyteWriter](https://lytewriter.com/#how-it-works), which is meant for “analog” writers. It enables you to scan and upload your handwritten or typed documents and it provides a verification that they were not AI-generated.\n\nThere are also services such as [Verify My Writing](https://verifymywriting.com/) and [Authortegrity](https://authortegrity.com/#authors) that offer post-writing verification. These rely on a combination of self-attestation and AI-detector-based verification. While interesting ideas, they may not solve the problem of your work being questioned.\n\nHowever, the best answer may have been under our noses the whole time, as there is a simple and free third-party verification tool that is available to everyone and has been used by millions for another task.\n\n#### The Possible Long Game\n\nTo computer programmers, the issue of version control and verification probably sounds like a solved problem.[ For well over 20 years](https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Getting-Started-A-Short-History-of-Git), they’ve used Git to track changes, manage versions and show how a project came together over time.\n\nThe problem with Git is that it’s not the most user-friendly tool, especially to those who aren’t technically inclined. Even fans of Git acknowledge that there is a significant learning curve.\n\nThe publication workbench tool [Zettlr](https://www.zettlr.com/) and the notes tool [Obsidian](https://obsidian.md/) both have ways to integrate with Git. With Zettlr, the integration is [built-in but requires configuration](https://research-memex.org/docs/implementation/foundational-setup/zettlr-setup-guide). With Obsidian, [there is a plugin that can be installed](https://github.com/Vinzent03/obsidian-git).\n\nThe advantage of Git is that you are not reliant on a particular provider, you can use GitHub, GitLab or host your own (though that would reduce the verification benefits). You can also choose public or private repositories depending on your needs.\n\nWhile Git won’t help with keyboard tracking or other verification, it can provide a clear audit trail of how a work came together and it does so in a standardized format.\n\nThe other limitation of Git is that it is primarily for plain text files. While this isn’t a problem if you write in [Markdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown), if you prefer to work in a rich text editor, you’ll need to have a way to convert your work to plain text if you want full versioning support.\n\nStill Git, much like Google Docs, shows us that the tools that enable collaboration also enable verification. This may be a powerful approach moving forward, especially if it becomes more accessible to non-technical users.\n\n#### Bottom Line\n\nWe are at something of a strange point in history when it comes to writing. Though humans have long been accused of plagiarizing each other, now humans are being accused of plagiarizing AI. That creates a serious problem as determining human-to-human plagiarism is relatively simple compared to proving that a work was or was not generated by AI.\n\nBut even the accusation of using AI can be destructive to one’s career. It’s no longer enough to not use AI, one has to avoid all appearances of it and be able to prove their authenticity on demand.\n\nThere is a very real need for free, effective and easy-to-use tools that can help verify human-generated content. [AI watermarking isn’t the answer](https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/01/22/why-ai-watermarking-isnt-the-answer/), as helpful as it may be in some situations.\n\nWhile there are a lot of tools that can help with this, I didn’t find anything that really covered all the bases. My ideal solution would be free (or extremely low-cost), provide typing and editing tracking as well as provide a clear public audit trail of the work. It would also work with the tools writers are already using and be accessible to non-technical users.\n\nAnd yes, I recognize that this is a ridiculous request. I might as well be asking for a first-class round-trip train ticket to Mars. But that doesn’t change the situation and it doesn’t change the need.\n\nSo, for right now, the best option is to look at the tools that are available and see what fits your particular needs the best.It may be one approach or a combination of systems. There’s not really a right or wrong answer here.\n\nTo be clear on one point, I’m not saying that some or any of these tools would have helped Falade, we know so little about why his book was removed from consideration that it’s impossible to say.\n\nBut these tools could help other authors and that alone makes them worth exploring.\n\n#### Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?\n\nIf you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.", "url": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai", "canonical_source": "https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2026/08/11/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai/", "published_at": "2026-08-11 19:03:42+00:00", "updated_at": "2026-08-14 16:36:48.797330+00:00", "lang": "en", "topics": ["artificial-intelligence", "ai-ethics", "ai-policy"], "entities": ["Jerry Falade", "Minotaur Books", "Plagiarism Today", "Google Docs", "Microsoft Word", "Grammarly Authorship", "Draftback", "Vellumproof"], "alternates": {"html": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai", "markdown": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai.md", "text": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai.txt", "jsonld": "https://wpnews.pro/news/how-to-prove-that-your-writing-is-not-ai.jsonld"}}