The Paradox of InfoFi: A Collective Self-Deception

In the current InfoFi track, almost all platforms are doing the same thing:
Use algorithms to detect and limit, to determine whether an article is written by AI.
They regard this as a "firewall of order," believing that as long as this barrier is maintained, it can protect the so-called "uniqueness of humanity."
But the problem is that such efforts are essentially a form of collective self-deception.

1. The restriction mechanism is, in itself, a form of training mechanism.

Algorithm detection may seem like a constraint, but in reality, it is reverse education for AI.
Whatever the platform focuses on, AI learns to cover it up. Whatever the algorithm is picky about, AI learns to disguise it.

When detection requirements become more complex, AI writing becomes more human-like.
A more natural tone, more subtle emotions, and imperfections that are more human-like logic. Time and again, the so-called "limitations" are actually helping AI complete its iterative upgrades towards personification.

This is the first paradox:
The more we try to limit AI, the faster AI evolves.

2. The Passive Game of Creators
In the logic of InfoFi, traffic and speed determine survival.
If someone refuses to use AI, they will be eliminated in terms of efficiency.
And once AI is used, he must learn to "bypass detection."

This means that the limitations designed by the platform have instead become a compulsory course for creators. They have to learn more precise prompts, understand how to manipulate the writing style of AI, and even learn to simulate human logical leaps and emotional fluctuations, making the articles appear "more human."

Thus, the second paradox emerged:
Restrictions do not make humans return to writing, but rather train humans to become AI trainers.

3. The boundary between humans and AI is being dissolved.

When all creators are caught up in this game, the boundaries begin to blur:
Human writing and AI writing have become inseparable.
"Originality" has gradually become an illusion; it can either be created by humans or be a mixture of human and AI collaboration.

The existence of algorithms is not to distinguish between humans and AI, but rather to accelerate the widespread integration of this hybrid.
Ultimately, a third paradox emerged:
All articles seem to be written by humans, but they are actually all AI.

4. Platform Illusion and Social Illusion

This is the collective self-deception of the InfoFi ecosystem:
They believe that algorithms can protect the real, yet are unaware that algorithms are creating a false order.

This illusion belongs not only to the platform but also to all of us who are part of it.
When we rely on AI to create, rely on algorithms to judge, and rely on platforms to allocate, we have collectively entered an information mirage:
What seems like a prosperous creation is, in fact, a self-replication of the same model.

Here, restrictions are no longer restrictions but a form of acceleration. The more the platform wants to protect "humanity," the more it pushes society towards complete AI integration.
And when all this happens, we no longer even need to ask, "Who wrote this article?"

Because the answer is cruel: all articles seem to be written by humans, but in fact, they are all AI.

@KaitoAI @Punk9277