amanuensimus
We did this.
The question was never whether a human typed this. It was whether anyone thought it through.
Two failure modes have the field in a pincer. One is undisclosed AI use meant to deceive — the slop flood that trains everyone to flinch. The other is the flinch itself: the reflex that rejects anything that looks AI-touched, judging the rendering instead of the thinking. Between them sits work that was genuinely thought through and honestly disclosed — penalised by the second reflex, and made to look naïve by the first.
Amanuensimus is the infrastructure for that middle case. It makes honest collaboration between a human author and a model tractable: the ideas remain the author's, the labour is divided in the open, and the reader is given what they need to judge accordingly.
Attribution follows responsibility, not keystrokes.
Ideas were never wholly internal. The test of authorship has always been whether you can defend a thing under scrutiny you did not rehearse for, extend it to cases you never discussed, and answer for its consequences. Pass that, and the causal chain — read, thought, prompted, revised — is uninteresting; the work is yours. Fail it, and you have the appearance of an idea, not the idea. The bar is stricter than I typed it myself, and more honest. It falls equally on AI-assisted work, half-remembered lectures, and undigested reading.
Four commitments hold the framework together.
Voice fidelity — prose that keeps the author's voice, verified by measurement rather than asserted by a prompt.
Disclosure integrity — every artefact carries a machine-readable record of the collaboration, and renders it into a disclosure a reader can weigh.
Bias mitigation — an evidence-first method, with adversarial review held in fresh, uncontaminated sessions, because the best-intentioned mind cannot audit itself from the inside.
Reader-side integrity — tools for the other half of the compact, because new writing norms are stranded without new reading ones.
This is early, and it is meant to be argued with. If the position is wrong, or the practice insufficient, the answer is revision, not defence.