I don't think that's true. I think it's a binary 0% or near 100% probability of a watermark having been detected; the more changes to the text having been made after the text was output by the LLM and the less leeway the LLM had for probable word choices, the longer the passage necessary to see it.

The "problem" is that seeing the watermark doesn't mean that the person claiming to be the author didn't make extensive changes to the output of the LLM, or that the LLM wasn't simply the final editor of something that the author had put a lot of work into.

> Cognitive surrender.

I don't know what this means. It's just drama. Don't let the LLM write for you and this is not a worry. I'm not worried about the poetry of LLM output being subtly adulterated.