HGCP: A Voluntary Signing Framework for Human Expression in the Age of AI

Internet-Draft	HGCP	April 2025
Tao	Expires 3 October 2025	[Page]

Abstract

In an era where AI-generated content has become indistinguishable from human writing, the Human-Generated Content Protocol (HGCP) proposes a voluntary signing framework that enables human authors to publicly acknowledge their expressions. Rather than detecting or classifying content origin, HGCP allows individuals to declare, in a structured and verifiable format, that they take responsibility for a specific piece of content. The protocol is platform-neutral, identity-flexible, and suitable for both real-name and pseudonymous use. It does not evaluate accuracy, originality, or quality; it simply enables people to say: “This is mine, and I stand by it.” By providing a lightweight, human-first declaration format, HGCP aims to preserve the visibility of human agency within an increasingly synthetic information ecosystem.¶

1. Introduction

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].¶

In the rapidly evolving digital world, a flood of content from countless sources fills our screens—much of it now automatically generated and detached from genuine human intent. As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly proficient at mimicking human expression, the boundary between real thought and algorithmic generation is blurring.¶

This rise in synthetic content presents a fundamental question: if we can no longer know who wrote something, can we know whether anyone is willing to stand behind it?¶

The Human-Generated Content Protocol (HGCP) is a voluntary signing structure that addresses this problem—not by detecting or filtering AI-generated content, but by giving human authors a minimal and declarative way to say: “This is my expression, and I take responsibility for it.”¶

HGCP is not a detection algorithm, classification tool, or identity system. It is a responsibility declaration format. It enables any writer—regardless of identity type or platform—to attach a timestamped, verifiable statement of authorship to their content.¶

HGCP is intentionally minimal, non-intrusive, and flexible. It does not require real names or centralized verification. It does not replace content evaluation or moderation. It simply offers a signal: someone, somewhere, chose to stand behind this piece of expression. That signal, once made, can be interpreted and used however communities choose.¶

This act of signing is a social gesture of responsibility—not a legal admission or factual claim.¶

2. The Problem of Expression Trust

The internet was originally built to foster human connection and communication. Yet in a world where content creation, duplication, and distribution now approach zero cost, the origin of information has become increasingly obscured.¶

We once inferred authorship and trust from domain names, writing style, and user profiles—but now, all of these can be simulated by AI. This leads not only to an explosion of noise, but also to a subtle erosion of meaning: readers hesitate to believe; authors hesitate to take credit; platforms hesitate to accept risk.¶

Many recent proposals have focused on "AI detection"—using classifiers to guess whether a given text was machine-generated. These tools are probabilistic, easily evaded, and often fail as models advance.¶

HGCP shifts the question entirely. It does not ask, “Was this content human-made?”
It asks, “Is any human willing to say: this was me?”¶

This seemingly small act—a signed statement of responsibility—may become the most important signal of authorship in an increasingly synthetic information ecosystem. Not because it proves truth or identity, but because it reflects a human's willingness to be known as the author.¶

3. The Philosophy of HGCP: Responsibility Over Provenance

The core idea of HGCP is not to verify originality, authorship, or human origin of content—but to offer a voluntary, structured way for a person to publicly acknowledge their expression.¶

Whereas most systems ask, "Who created this?", HGCP asks something simpler and deeper:
"Are you willing to say: I said this?"¶

Signing under HGCP does not mean the content is accurate, valuable, or unique.
It only means: “This came from me, and I stand by it.” — socially, not legally.¶

This transforms the act of signing into a declaration of presence—not a claim of authority, truth, or expertise.
To speak is not only to express; it is to be willing to be recognized as the speaker.¶

HGCP is not anti-AI. It does not reject AI assistance.
If a human chooses to sign something—even if AI helped—they are choosing to take human responsibility for the final output.¶

HGCP does not care what tools you used, or what identity you chose.
It only cares that someone—a person—was willing to leave their mark and say:
“I won’t deny this is mine.”¶

That act of responsibility is not a signal of trust.
It is the beginning of traceable expression—not verified authorship.¶

4. Signature Declaration Structure

HGCP provides a minimal and consistent way for individuals to attach a human-responsible declaration to their expression. The purpose of this signature is not to validate the content's origin or truth, but to acknowledge authorship responsibility.¶

4.1. Required Fields:

signer_id
A signer-chosen identifier that links a human author to a specific declaration.
This can be a stable pseudonym, public key fingerprint, platform handle, or decentralized ID.
(Examples: "tao_qiwen", "0xDEADBEEF...", "@user42", or "did:example:abc123")¶

The HGCP protocol does not resolve or verify these identifiers.
However, using consistent and cryptographically verifiable identifiers (e.g., PGP fingerprints, DIDs)
can help platforms or readers interpret expression histories over time.¶

Tools and platforms MAY choose to interpret or visualize signer_id based on their own logic, but HGCP itself does not rank or authenticate identities.¶
timestamp
The UTC time when the signature was created, preferably in [RFC3339] format.
(Example: "2025-03-29T14:22:00Z")¶
content_hash
A cryptographic digest of the content, using a standard function (e.g., SHA-256 as per [RFC6234]).
This ensures the signature applies to a specific version of the content.
(Example: "c9a7f99bca40...f3b8eaa1")¶
hgcp_version
The HGCP structure version. This enables future compatibility.
(Example: "0.2")¶
declaration
A plain, human-written statement affirming authorship and responsibility for the content. The declaration is flexible in form, but SHOULD be meaningful, interpretable, and context-aware.
It is not legally binding, but serves as an ethical gesture:
“I said this, and I choose to be recognized as the speaker.” （Example: "I acknowledge that the above content was written by me and I take responsibility for it."）¶

4.2. Optional Fields:

tools_used
Any relevant tools involved in content creation, such as AI assistants or translation software.
(Example: ["ChatGPT", "DeepL"])¶
revocability
Indicates whether the signed content can be edited or withdrawn by the signer.
Suggested values:¶
immutable¶
revocable-with-proof¶
time-limited-editable¶

Platforms MAY honor revocation requests based on this field, but are not required to do so.
(Example: "revocable-with-proof")¶
signature
An optional cryptographic proof of authorship.
This may take the form of an OpenPGP signature, a DID-based proof, or a W3C Verifiable Credential.
(Example: an OpenPGP block per [RFC9580] or a proof object in VC format.)¶

4.3. Example Signature (Markdown):

markdown Author: Tao Qiwen Timestamp: 2025-03-29T14:22Z HGCP Version: 0.2 Tools Used: ChatGPT + manual edits Content Hash (SHA-256): aGVsbG8sIHdvcmxk... Revocability: editable-until-locked Declaration: I confirm that the above content was published by me, and I take responsibility as a human author.¶

Example HGCP Signature (JSON, v0.1): json { "signer_id": "qiwen2025", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T14:22Z", "hgcp_version": "0.2", "content_hash": "a732c8dffe34aabbcc...", "tools_used": ["ChatGPT", "Notion AI"], "revocability": "editable-until-locked", "declaration": "I confirm that the above content was published by me, and I take responsibility as a human author." }¶

Optional cryptographic signature(if used):¶

json { "signature": "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\n...\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----" }¶

4.4. Versioning:

HGCP signatures are versioned only to indicate structural compatibility—not to indicate the truth value, identity strength, or software used.¶

v0.1: Basic signature fields (signer_id, timestamp, hash, declaration)¶
v0.2: Adds optional cryptographic signing (e.g., PGP)¶

Future versions may support richer metadata, including multi-signer declarations or structured revocation formats. However, the core semantics of voluntary human responsibility will remain unchanged.¶

5. Platform and Tool Integration Suggestions

HGCP is platform-neutral and decentralized.
It defines a minimal, voluntary declaration format—not a service, network, or identity protocol.
However, platforms and tools can enhance expression transparency and user agency by supporting HGCP-style signatures.¶

The following integration suggestions are non-normative and fully optional:¶

5.1. For content platforms:

Support HGCP signature generation (e.g., auto-add timestamp, content hash, and a user-provided declaration)¶
Display HGCP declarations visibly alongside content¶
Allow users to export signed content with metadata (e.g., JSON-LD or plaintext blocks)¶
Provide a "verify hash" feature to check content integrity against the declaration¶
Optionally allow users to report clearly forged or mismatched declarations (without relying on automated detection)¶

5.2. For authoring tools:

Markdown editors, word processors, or note apps can offer local HGCP signing plugins¶
AI-assisted writing tools may include HGCP signature prompts during editing or export¶
Submission systems may include a “human responsibility declaration” option on publication¶

5.3. For reader tools and browser extensions:

Detect and visually highlight HGCP-signed content (e.g., badges, overlays)¶
Let readers inspect declaration structure and metadata¶
Optionally offer hash comparison to verify content integrity¶

HGCP does not define or endorse any scoring, ranking, or reputation system.
Interpretation of signature patterns or signer behavior is left entirely to the platform or community.
The protocol only enables expression responsibility—it does not evaluate or score it.¶

7. Example Use Cases

The following examples illustrate how HGCP declarations may be voluntarily applied in real-world settings.
These are non-normative and serve only to demonstrate the flexibility of identity and responsibility expression.
Each example shows how a signer may combine a chosen identifier and a clear declaration to acknowledge authorship.¶

7.1. Use Case 1: Personal Blog Post

A long-form blogger writing under a pseudonym adds a signature to the end of each post.
While their views are subjective, they accept personal responsibility for the expression.¶

json { "signer_id": "silentvoice", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T16:12Z", "tools_used": [], "declaration": "I wrote the above post entirely on my own and stand by it as a human author." }¶

7.2. Use Case 2: Anonymous Discussion Post

An anonymous commenter in a public thread wants to show they are a real person and take responsibility for their words.¶

json { "signer_id": "anon321", "timestamp": "2025-03-29T17:35Z", "tools_used": [], "declaration": "I stand by this statement as an individual human participant in this conversation." }¶

8. Criticisms and HGCP's Responses

As a voluntary protocol, HGCP is not without its skeptics.
The following are common concerns and clarifications based on HGCP's minimal scope:¶

8.1. Criticism 1: “Signing doesn’t stop misinformation.”

Response: Correct. HGCP is not a content moderation tool, fact-checking system, or truth validator. Its purpose is not to prevent falsehoods, but to make the presence of human authorship visible.
It simply allows someone to say: “I said this, and I acknowledge it.”¶

Whether a statement is correct or misleading is a separate question—to be handled by public debate, platform policy, or legal frameworks.
HGCP does not seek to replace those.¶

8.2. Criticism 2: “Anyone—including bad actors—can sign too.”

Response: True. HGCP is structurally neutral—it permits anyone to claim authorship.¶

But just as speech itself is morally neutral, signing is simply a visible act of association.
HGCP does not prevent manipulation or abuse. It only makes authorship claims visible and timestamped, enabling others to interpret and respond.¶

Trust must be earned over time; HGCP merely reveals who is willing to stand behind their words.¶

8.3. Criticism 3: “Why not require real names?”

Response: HGCP affirms the importance of anonymous and pseudonymous expression.
In many contexts, forced real-name use can threaten safety, chill dissent, or suppress marginalized voices.¶

Responsibility does not require identity disclosure. It only requires someone to say: “This is mine.” Even a pseudonym—used consistently—is enough to build visible presence and accountability over time.¶

8.4. Final Note:

HGCP enables voluntary, declarative authorship acknowledgment.
It complements—but does not replace—other systems of fact-checking, moderation, or trust.
It is not a gatekeeper of credibility. It is a container for voluntary responsibility—a human signal in a synthetic world.¶

9. Scope and Limits of Human Responsibility

HGCP affirms an ethical gesture of responsibility—not a legal or contractual obligation.¶

By signing, the author:¶

Affirms they are human (or self-identify as such),¶
Voluntarily claims authorship of the expression,¶
Accepts potential social consequences of making that claim visible.¶

However, the meaning of “responsibility” in HGCP must be clearly understood:¶

HGCP does not confer legal liability, unless such liability is defined by external laws or agreements.¶
HGCP does not guarantee truth, originality, or moral correctness.¶
HGCP permits revocation; platforms may optionally record and display revocation history.¶

Over time, a signer’s behavior—such as consistent authorship, frequent revocations, or contradictory claims—may influence how others interpret their expression history.
Such interpretations are entirely up to readers, communities, or platforms.
They are not part of HGCP’s structure or logic.¶

HGCP is a signal of authorship, not a system of judgment.
It is a flag of presence—not a badge of truth.¶

10. Why We Need HGCP Now

In an era where synthetic content floods our screens and truth feels elusive, what we are losing is not just facts—but responsibility.¶

Expression has never merely been about information. It is about standing behind what one says.¶

HGCP is a quiet signal. It is not a firewall, not a detection engine—
It is a torch, held by those willing to say:¶

“This is what I said. And I am willing to be remembered for it.”¶

Those who sign are not necessarily perfect, but they are present.
They are not hiding. They are willing to be named.¶

HGCP does not stop AI, nor does it determine the truth or value of content.
It offers a decentralized, human-first way to make authorship claims visible—
not for control, but for clarity.¶

Just as HTTPS makes communication verifiable,
HGCP makes expression attributable.
Not by enforcing identity, but by inviting responsibility.¶

In an age of artificial voice, what will stand out is not who speaks loudest—
but who is willing to say:
“Yes, this is mine.”¶

11. Future Extensions and Evolving Use Cases

HGCP is intentionally minimal.
Its current version focuses on text-based, single-signer declarations of human responsibility.¶

However, real-world expression scenarios are far more diverse.
Future optional companion drafts or community extensions may explore:¶

Multi-signer declarations (e.g., co-authorship or joint statements)¶
Multimedia content hashing (e.g., for audio, images, or video)¶
Partial responsibility claims (e.g., paragraph-level declaration blocks)¶
Publisher-disclosed AI content without human attribution¶
Rich contextual metadata for disclaimers, editing history, or framing¶

Some use cases may inspire optional community-defined labels (e.g., “editor”, “curator”, “translator”).
Such roles should be expressed via declaration text or companion specifications—not as formal protocol fields.¶

These extensions are not part of the current protocol and remain exploratory.
Any evolution of HGCP should remain faithful to its core principle:¶

Responsibility, voluntarily claimed, should be made legible.
New features must enhance this clarity—not obscure or overcomplicate it.¶

13. Security Considerations

HGCP does not introduce new network protocols or data exchange layers.
It poses no direct technical threats such as injection, eavesdropping, or man-in-the-middle attacks.¶

However, HGCP introduces indirect risks, rooted in the potential misuse or misinterpretation of voluntary signature declarations.
These risks are primarily social and structural, not cryptographic.¶

13.1. Identity Impersonation and Signature Forgery

Without optional cryptographic signing (e.g., OpenPGP), malicious actors may forge declarations using arbitrary signer IDs.
To mitigate impersonation, platforms may support cryptographic binding, identity verification mechanisms, or identity attestations. > HGCP itself does not provide or require any identity verification mechanism.
All verification and signer authentication are delegated to platform-level implementations, if desired.¶

13.2. Mass Signature Automation (Sybil Behavior)

In the absence of rate limits or friction, automated agents could mass-generate content with fake signature blocks to simulate presence at scale.
To reduce such noise, platforms may implement rate controls, account friction, or signature frequency thresholds.¶

13.3. Content Hash Evasion via Trivial Edits

HGCP uses cryptographic content hashes to bind the declaration to a specific text version.
Even minor changes (e.g., punctuation, emoji) generate different hashes, allowing close but unsigned derivatives to circulate unchallenged.¶

Platforms may address this via:¶

Content snapshot storage alongside signature metadata¶
Optional use of fuzzy hashing or similarity checks¶
Encouraging authors to sign canonical versions of their work¶

13.4. Revocation Misuse and Responsibility Evasion

HGCP supports editable or revocable declarations, which enhances flexibility.
However, it may also allow strategic withdrawal or denial of public expression.¶

Platforms are encouraged to:¶

Retain and display revocation timestamps or signature histories¶
Clearly indicate altered or withdrawn declarations¶
Offer viewers transparent context about change history¶

13.5. Absence of Native Trust or Scoring Mechanisms

HGCP intentionally avoids any native trust or scoring system.
All interpretations of signature consistency, credibility, or intent are left to the discretion of platforms or communities.
Protocol-level neutrality ensures freedom, but also delegates responsibility for risk assessment to the surrounding ecosystem.¶

13.6. Final Note

HGCP’s security lies not in enforcement, but in visibility.
It offers no guarantees—only a format in which authors can voluntarily say:
“This is mine. I said this.”¶

Whether others choose to believe, contest, or ignore such declarations is beyond the protocol’s scope.
HGCP’s minimal structure invites participation, not control.¶