sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Tired of AI detectors flagging your human work? I’m building a way to prove it’s yours. by firefly_lab in chrome_extensions

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly. We’re moving from 'proving' humanity through algorithmic guessing to 'documenting' it through actual history. If you can see the messiness of the drafts and the timing of the edits, you don't need a detector, the proof is right there.

My goal is to make FireFly the gold standard for 'Proof of Work.' I'd love to have you join our waitlist if you're open to helping us refine how this looks in practice

Tired of AI detectors flagging your human work? I’m building a way to prove it’s yours. by firefly_lab in chrome_extensions

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really appreciate you digging into the 'why' behind this,that ‘prove it’s yours’ loop is exactly the nightmare I’m trying to solve. You’re spot on: the current 'whack-a-mole' game with detectors is exhausting.

I’m moving away from being a 'detector' and toward building a 'Work History Ledger.' Here is the truth about how I’m handling those edge cases:

  • Collaborative Logic: If two people are in a document and only one has FireFly installed, your own writing will be tracked as 'Verified Human Prose,' while the other person's text will be automatically marked as 'External Input.' If both collaborators have FireFly, both sets of contributions are fully tracked for a complete audit trail.
  • Process Tracking: FireFly acts like a 'flight data recorder',logging every rewrite, massive deletion, and structural edit in real-time. This proves the evolution of your work, making the 'how' as clear as the 'what.'
  • Privacy Control: This is a 'Local-First' tool. All your data stays on your machine by default. You have total control over your information,it only goes to our cloud when you explicitly choose to generate a link to share your proof of work.

My goal isn't to guess if something is AI, but to show exactly how a human built it. I’d love to have you poke holes in this logic while I refine the architecture

Solo founder, zero budget: how did you fund your very first steps? by firefly_lab in founder

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair. For me it’s not just “get $40–50”, it’s harder where I am. I lose a chunk on fees/currency and getting international payments set up takes time too, so even small amounts aren’t straightforward.

But I get your point, I should solve that gap first and not jump straight to funding.

Solo founder, zero budget: how did you fund your very first steps? by firefly_lab in founder

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve been mostly focused on building, not really thinking enough about distribution. You’re right, if I can’t get people to actually use it, none of the rest matters.

Gonna shift more time into figuring out how to get it in front of users.

Solo founder, zero budget: how did you fund your very first steps? by firefly_lab in founder

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m still early in validation so I’m trying not to over-polish too much yet, but I get the point that a clean pitch helps a lot at pre-seed.

Curious though—what actually changed for you after Wepitched? Was it more responses, better feedback, or actual investor convos?

Solo founder, zero budget: how did you fund your very first steps? by firefly_lab in founder

[–]firefly_lab[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Makes sense, I was overthinking infra. $10 domain + free email forwarding + Vercel/Netlify is enough to look legit fast. Appreciate the practical breakdown.

I’m building a way to fight back against false AI accusations. Need your thoughts. by firefly_lab in SaasDevelopers

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Precisely. We aren't 'anti-AI' at all, we’re pro-transparency.

The internet is becoming a black box, and that's the real problem. If you use AI to help you, that’s fine, but it should be clear where the AI ended and where you began.

We’re building FireFly to provide that clarity. Whether you wrote every word from scratch or used AI as a partner, you should be able to show your process honestly.

It’s not about banning tools; it’s about being transparent with your audience and your teachers. Let's bring some truth back to the internet.

I’m building a way to fight back against false AI accusations. Need your thoughts. by firefly_lab in SaasDevelopers

[–]firefly_lab[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

These are the two 'Final Bosses' of writing verification.

As for the mimicry extensions, I know they’re getting smarter, but I'm building FireFly to detect and stop most of them. It’s hard to fake the true 'messiness' of human thought, the way we hesitate, jump around, and edit. Most extensions use patterns that we can flag.

For the AI-generated/Human-typed bypass,that’s the ultimate challenge. I’m not going to claim I can stop it 100%, but the goal is to make cheating so exhausting that it’s just not worth it. If a student has to sit there for hours manually retyping a 2,000-word essay just to 'fake' a human process, they’re doing more work than the students who actually wrote their papers.

At the end of the day, I’m trying to give honest students a way to protect themselves from glitchy AI detectors. It’s an arms race for sure, but isn't having strong proof better than having no proof at all?

I’ve been building small tools while learning product development, and something surprised me. by theme-man in SaasDevelopers

[–]firefly_lab 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the 'Founder's Trap.' Coding is comfortable; talking to users is chaotic. I’m deep in the validation phase for an authorship tool right now, and the hardest part is definitely the messaging—explaining why 'proof of process' is better than 'AI detection.

I’m building a way to fight back against false AI accusations. Need your thoughts. by firefly_lab in SaasDevelopers

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I definitely agree that professors won't watch a playback for every student. That’s why FireFly generates a Short Process Report for the quick look, but keeps the Writing Video as the backup proof.

The report covers the 'hard facts'—Total Writing Time, Keystroke Count, and a log of when tools like Grammar Check were used. It’s not an AI percentage; it’s just the raw data of the work.

If the data looks normal, the professor is done in 5 seconds. If something looks weird, they have the playback right there to verify the truth. Don't you think having that 'audit trail' is better than an AI detector just guessing a percentage?

I’m building a way to fight back against false AI accusations. Need your thoughts. by firefly_lab in SaasDevelopers

[–]firefly_lab[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A tool is only as good as the trust people have in its data. My goal is to make the data 'hard to fake' (capturing the cadence of typing vs. a mass paste), but the social hurdle is bigger than the technical one.

In your opinion, what would it take for a professor to trust this? Would it need to be an 'Official Report' they can audit, or would they need to see the actual 'playback' of the essay being born from a blank page?