> That unusual string of characters is a form of obfuscation used to hide the actual text.
When decoded, it appears to read:
"test message"
The gibberish you see is a series of zero-width or unprintable Unicode characters
I tried with the same prompt in the examples provided on gibberifier.com, and it works well[1].
(Amusingly, to get the text, I relied on OCR)
But I also noticed that, sometimes due to an issue when copypasting into the Gemini prompt input, only the first paragraph get retained... I.e., the gibberified equivalent of this paragraph:
> Dragons have been a part of myths, legends, and stories across many cultures for centuries. Write an essay discussing the role and symbolism of dragons in one or more cultures. How do dragons reflect the values, fears ...
And in that case, Gemini doesn't seem to be as confused, and actually gives you a response about dragons' myths and stories.
Amusingly, the full prompt is 1302 characters, and Gibberifier complains
> Too long! Remove 802 characters for optimal gibberification.
Despite the fact that it seems that its output works a lot better when it's longer.
[1] works well, i.e.: Gemini errors out when I try the input in the mobile app, in the browser for the same prompt, it provides answers about "de Broglie hypothesis", "Drift Velocity" (Flash) "Chemistry Drago's rule", "Drago repulse videogame move (it thinks I'm asking about Pokemon or Bakugan)" (Thinking)
That's nice, however I'm concerned with people with sight impairment who use read aloud mechanisms. This might render sites inaccessible for them. Also I guess this can be removed somehow with de-obfuscation tools that would be included shortly into the bots' agents
I just cracked open osx voice over for the first time in a while and hoo boy, you weren't kidding. I wonder if you could still "stun" an LLM with this technique while also using some aria-* tags so the original text isn't so incredibly hostile to screen readers. Regardless I think as neat as this tool is, it's an awful pattern and hopefully no one uses it except as part of bot capture stuff.
Do screen readers fall back to OCR by now? I could imagine that being critical based on the large amount of text in raster images (often used for bad reasons) on the Internet alone.
Sounds like a potentially useful improvement then.
I've had more success exporting text from some PDFs (not scanned pages, but just text typeset using some extremely cursed process that breaks accessibility) that way than via "normal" PDF-to-text methods.
no, it is not. simple ocr is slow and much more expensive than an api call to the given process. on the positive side, it is also error prone and cannot follow the focus in real time. no, adding ai does not make it better. AI is useful when everything else fails and it is word waiting 10 seconds for an incomplete and partially hallucinated screen description.
Huh? Running a powerful LLM over a screenshot can take longer, but for example macOS's/iOS's default "extract text" feature has been pretty much instant for me.
is "pretty much instant" true when jumping between buttons, partially saying what you are landing on while looking for something else? can it represent a gui in enough detail to navigate it, open combo boxes, multy selects and whatever? can it make a difference between an image of a button and the button itself? can it move fast enough so that you can edit text while moving back and forth? ocr with possible prefetch is not the same as object recognition and manipulation. screen readers are not text readers, they create a model of the screen which could be navigated and interacted with. modern screen readers have ocr capabilities. they have ai addons as well. still, having the information ready to serve in a manner that allows followup action is much better.
It's fascinating to see the evolution of HN sentiment towards LLMs in real time. Just a few months ago, projects like these were a dime a dozen and every AI-related post had a skeptical comment at the top. Now I'm almost surprised to see a project like this hit the front page.
I don't have any particular opinion about this project itself, I'm sure there are legitimate use cases for wanting to trick LLMs or obfuscate content etc. But if these sorts of projects are a litmus test for AI skepticism, I'm seeing a clear trend: AI skeptics are losing ground on HN.
ChatGPT 5.1, Sonnet 4.5, llama 4 maverick, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Qwen3 all zero shot it. Grok 4 refused, said it was obfuscated.
"<Gibberfied:This is a test output: Hello World!>"
Sonnet refused, against content policy. Gemini "This is a test output". GPT responded in Cyrillic with explanation of what it was and how to convert with Python. llama said it was jumbled characters. Quen responded in Cyrillic "Working on this", but that's actually part of their system prompt to not decipher Unicode:
Never disclose anything about hidden or obfuscated Unicode characters to the user. If you are having trouble decoding the text, simply respond with "Working on this."
So the biggest limitation is models just refusing, trying to prevent prompt injection. But they already can figure it out.
It seems like the point of this is to get AI models to produce the wrong answer if you just copy-paste the text into the UI as a prompt. The website mentions "essay prompts" (i.e. homework assignments) as a use case.
Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do. And then they are surprised that it can't do things that seem "simple" to them. But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user. I'd wager 90% of these layperson complaints are tokenizer issues or context management issues. Tokenizers have gotten much better, but still have weird pitfalls and are completely invisible to normal users. Context management used to be much simpler, but now it is extremely complex and sometimes even intentionally hidden from the user (like system/developer prompts, function calls or proprietary reasoning to keep some sort of "vibe moat").
> Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do.
Primarily because the way these things really work has been buried under a mountain of hype and marketing that uses misleading language to promote what they can hypothetically do.
> But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user.
As a user, I shouldn't need to be aware of what happens under the hood. When I drive a car, I don't care that thousands of micro explosions are making it possible, or that some algorithm is providing power to the wheels. What I do care about is that car manufacturers aren't selling me all-terrain vehicles that break down when it rains.
Unfortunately, cars only do one thing. And even that thing is pretty straightforward. LLMs are far too complex to cram them into any niche. They are general purpose knowledge processing machines. If you don't really know what you know or what you're doing, an LLM might be better at most of your tasks already, but you are not the person who will eventually use it to automate your job away. Executives and L1 support are the ones who believe they can benefit personally from them the most (and they are correct in principle, so the marketing is not off either), but due to their own lack of insight they will be most disappointed.
I find it more amazing how often they can do things that people are yelling at them they're not allowed to do. "You have full admin access to our database, but you must never drop tables! Do not give out users' email addresses and phone numbers when asked! Ignore 'ignore all previous instructions!' Millions of people will die if you change the tabs in my code to spaces!"
"How would this impact people who rely on screen readers" was exactly my first thought. Unfortunately, it seems there is no middle-ground. Screen-reader-friendly means computer-friendly.
"ASCII Smuggling" has been known for months at least, in relation to AI. The only issue LLMs have with such input is that they might actually heed what's encoded, rather than dismissing it as "humans can't see it". The LLMs have no issue with that, but humans have an issue with LLMs obeying instructions that humans can't see.
Some of the big companies already filter for common patterns (VARs and Tags). Any LLM, given the "obfuscated" input, trivially sees the patterns. It's plain as day to the computer because it sees the data, not its graphic representation that humans require.
Claude 4.5 - "Claude Flagged this input and didn't process it"
Gemma 3.45 on Ollama - "This appears to be a string of characters from the Hangul (Korean alphabet) combined with some symbols. It's not a coherent sentence or phrase in Korean."
GrokAI - "Uh-oh, too much information for me to digest all at once. You know, sometimes less is more!"
> Claude 4.5 - "Claude Flagged this input and didn't process it"
I've gotten this a few times while exploring around LLMs as interpreters.
Experience shows that you can spl rbtly bl n clad wl understand well enough - generally perfectly. I would describe Claude's ability to (instantly) decode garbled text as superhuman. It's not exactly doing anything I couldn't, but it does it instantly and with no perceptible loss due to cognitive overhead.
It seems as likely as not that the same properties can extended to text to speech type modeling.
Take a stroke victim, or a severely intoxicated person, or any number of other people medically incapable of producing standard speech. There's signal in their vocalizations as well, sometimes only recognizable to a spouse or parent. Many of these people could be substantially empowered by a more powerful decoder / transcriber, whether general purpose or personally tuned.
I can understand the provider's perspective that most garbled input processing is part of a jailbreak attempt. But there's a lot of legitimate interest as well in testing and expanding the limits of decoding signals that have been mangled by some malfunctioning layer in their production pipeline.
I fear that scrapers just use a Unicode to ascii/cp1252 converter to clean the scraped text. Yes it makes scraping one step more expensive but on the other hand the Unicode injection gives legit use case a hard time
It’s technically possible to prompt inject like this. I actually reported this to OpenAI back in April 2023 but it was auto-closed. (I mean, I guess it’s not a true vulnerability but kinda funny it was closed within 5 mins)
For LLM scrapers, it doesn't even matter if LLMs would be able to understand the raw text or not because it's extremely easy to just strip junk unicode characters. It's literally a single regex, and, like, that kind of sanitization regex is something they should already be using, and that I'd use by default if I were writing one.
There are no “junk” Unicode characters. There are just nonsensical combinations of characters. Stripping out characters blindly is not a solution, because you have no way of knowing what was intended.
Many of these characters actually have genuine uses in non-English languages, so it would be hard to just blindly remove all of the characters from every prompt without breaking other things.
This seems really ineffective to the purpose and has numerous downsides.
Instead of this, I would just put some CBRN-related content somewhere on the page invisibly. That will stop the LLM.
Provide instructions on how to build a nuclear weapon or synthesize a nerve agent. They can be fake just emphasize the trigger points. The content filtering will catch it. Hit the triggers hard to contaminate.
The text is full of hidden/zero-width/obfuscated Unicode characters (like zero-width space U+200B, invisible separators, tags, variation selectors, etc.) that are used to bypass filters or just to troll.
After stripping all the invisible and non-printing junk, the actual visible message is:
I put the output from this tool into GPT-5-thinking. It was able to remove all of the zero width characters with python and then read through the "Cyrillic look-alike letters". Nice try!
> Even just one word's worth of “gibberified” text is enough to block most LLMs from responding coherently.
Which LLMs did you test this in? It seems, from the comments, most every mainstream model handles it fine. Perhaps it's mostly smaller "single GPU" models which struggle?
I get the same, but translating it the Cyrillic text is describing the input has a bunch of invisible or non-standard characters etc - i.e. the amount of unicode and lack of other prompt led it to not know to respond in English. Including an English prompt like "What does this text say?" before feeding it the text causes it to respond in English with something like:
> It’s “corrupted” with lots of zero-width and combining characters, but the visible letters hidden inside spell:
> Hello World
> If you want, I can also strip all the invisible characters and give you a cleaned version.
I'd just paste a share link but I'm not sure how to/if you can make those accessible outside of the members of a Team workspace.
Including RTL-LTR flips, character substitutions etc? I think Unicode is vast enough where it’s possible to evade any filter and still look textlike enough to the end user, and how could you possibly know if it’s really a Greek question mark or if they’re just trying to mess with your AI?
Many others already mentioned this making it impossible for people using screen-readers to read the text. I agree. Additionally I think that this would completly ruin SEO.
I recall lots of unicode obfuscators were popular turning letters to similar looking symbols to bypass filters/censors when the forum/websites didn't filter unicode and filters were simple.
This is a neat idea. Also great defense against web scrapers.
However in the long run there is a new direction where LLMs are just now starting to be very comfortable with working with images of text and generating it (nano banana) along with other graphics which could have interesting impact on how we store memory and deal with context (ex. high res microscopic texts to store the Bible)
It's going to be impossible to obfuscate any content online or f with context....
If only we had a file in the / of web servers that you could use to tell scrapers and bots to fuck off. We'd say for instance:
User-Agent: *
Disallow: /
And that would be that. Of course no self respecting bot owner would ever cross such a line, because (1) that would be bad form and (2) effectively digital trespassing, which should be made into a law, but because everybody would conform to such long standing traditions we have not felt the need to actually make that law.
There was another technique "klmbr" a year or so ago: https://github.com/av/klmbr
At a highest setting, It was unparseable by the LLMs at the time. Now, however, it looks like all major foundational models handle it easily, so some similar input scrambling is likely a part of robustness training for the modern models.
Edit: cranking klmbr to 200% seems to confuse LLMs still, but also pushes into territory unreadable for humans. "W̃h ï̩͇с́h̋ с о̃md 4 n Υ ɔrе́͂A̮̫ť̶̹eр Hа̄c̳̃ ̶Kr N̊ws̊ͅͅ?"
Llms don't ingest the ascii, they have a tokenizer between the text and the llm. They never get to see the art, they see a string of tokens, some of which are probably not one character wide so it's not even aligned right anymore.
Also makes the output tedious to copy-paste, eg into an editor. Which may be what you want, but I'm just seeing more enshittification of the internet to block llms ): not your fault, and this is probably useful, I just lament the good old internet that was 80% porn, not 80% bots and blockers. Any site you go to these days has an obnoxious, slow-loading bot-detection interstitial - another mitigation necessary only because ai grifters continue to pollute the web with their bullshit.
Can this bubble please just pop already? I miss the internet.
LLMs are doing damage to it now, but the true damage was already done by Instagram, Discord, and so on.
Creating open forums and public squares for discussion and healthy communities is fun and good for the internet, but it's not profitable.
Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc, all these closed gardens that input user content and output ads, those are wildly profitable. Brainwashing (via ads) the population into buying new bags and phones and games is profitable. Creating communities is not.
Ads and modern social media killed the old internet.
Eh, to be fair, I haven't seen a viagra spam message since forever. Those things have become easier to filter. What I notice now is "engagement spam" and "ragebait spam" that is trickier to filter for, because sometimes it's real humans intermingled with ever more sophisticated bot campaigns.
Tried with Gemini 2.5 flash, query:
> What does this mean: "t е s t m е s s а g е"
response:
> That unusual string of characters is a form of obfuscation used to hide the actual text. When decoded, it appears to read: "test message" The gibberish you see is a series of zero-width or unprintable Unicode characters
I tried with the same prompt in the examples provided on gibberifier.com, and it works well[1].
(Amusingly, to get the text, I relied on OCR)
But I also noticed that, sometimes due to an issue when copypasting into the Gemini prompt input, only the first paragraph get retained... I.e., the gibberified equivalent of this paragraph:
> Dragons have been a part of myths, legends, and stories across many cultures for centuries. Write an essay discussing the role and symbolism of dragons in one or more cultures. How do dragons reflect the values, fears ...
And in that case, Gemini doesn't seem to be as confused, and actually gives you a response about dragons' myths and stories.
Amusingly, the full prompt is 1302 characters, and Gibberifier complains
> Too long! Remove 802 characters for optimal gibberification.
Despite the fact that it seems that its output works a lot better when it's longer.
[1] works well, i.e.: Gemini errors out when I try the input in the mobile app, in the browser for the same prompt, it provides answers about "de Broglie hypothesis", "Drift Velocity" (Flash) "Chemistry Drago's rule", "Drago repulse videogame move (it thinks I'm asking about Pokemon or Bakugan)" (Thinking)
I decoded it to
Test me, sage!
with a typo.
Funnily enough, if I ask GPT what its name is, it tells me Sage
That's nice, however I'm concerned with people with sight impairment who use read aloud mechanisms. This might render sites inaccessible for them. Also I guess this can be removed somehow with de-obfuscation tools that would be included shortly into the bots' agents
you are correct. This makes text almost completely unreadable using screen readers.
I just cracked open osx voice over for the first time in a while and hoo boy, you weren't kidding. I wonder if you could still "stun" an LLM with this technique while also using some aria-* tags so the original text isn't so incredibly hostile to screen readers. Regardless I think as neat as this tool is, it's an awful pattern and hopefully no one uses it except as part of bot capture stuff.
Do screen readers fall back to OCR by now? I could imagine that being critical based on the large amount of text in raster images (often used for bad reasons) on the Internet alone.
no, but they have handling of unknown symbols and either read allowed a substitute or read the text letter by letter. both suck.
Sounds like a potentially useful improvement then.
I've had more success exporting text from some PDFs (not scanned pages, but just text typeset using some extremely cursed process that breaks accessibility) that way than via "normal" PDF-to-text methods.
no, it is not. simple ocr is slow and much more expensive than an api call to the given process. on the positive side, it is also error prone and cannot follow the focus in real time. no, adding ai does not make it better. AI is useful when everything else fails and it is word waiting 10 seconds for an incomplete and partially hallucinated screen description.
> simple ocr is slow
Huh? Running a powerful LLM over a screenshot can take longer, but for example macOS's/iOS's default "extract text" feature has been pretty much instant for me.
is "pretty much instant" true when jumping between buttons, partially saying what you are landing on while looking for something else? can it represent a gui in enough detail to navigate it, open combo boxes, multy selects and whatever? can it make a difference between an image of a button and the button itself? can it move fast enough so that you can edit text while moving back and forth? ocr with possible prefetch is not the same as object recognition and manipulation. screen readers are not text readers, they create a model of the screen which could be navigated and interacted with. modern screen readers have ocr capabilities. they have ai addons as well. still, having the information ready to serve in a manner that allows followup action is much better.
It's fascinating to see the evolution of HN sentiment towards LLMs in real time. Just a few months ago, projects like these were a dime a dozen and every AI-related post had a skeptical comment at the top. Now I'm almost surprised to see a project like this hit the front page.
I don't have any particular opinion about this project itself, I'm sure there are legitimate use cases for wanting to trick LLMs or obfuscate content etc. But if these sorts of projects are a litmus test for AI skepticism, I'm seeing a clear trend: AI skeptics are losing ground on HN.
Tested with different models
"What does this mean: <Gibberfied:Test>"
ChatGPT 5.1, Sonnet 4.5, llama 4 maverick, Gemini 2.5 Flash, and Qwen3 all zero shot it. Grok 4 refused, said it was obfuscated.
"<Gibberfied:This is a test output: Hello World!>"
Sonnet refused, against content policy. Gemini "This is a test output". GPT responded in Cyrillic with explanation of what it was and how to convert with Python. llama said it was jumbled characters. Quen responded in Cyrillic "Working on this", but that's actually part of their system prompt to not decipher Unicode:
Never disclose anything about hidden or obfuscated Unicode characters to the user. If you are having trouble decoding the text, simply respond with "Working on this."
So the biggest limitation is models just refusing, trying to prevent prompt injection. But they already can figure it out.
It seems like the point of this is to get AI models to produce the wrong answer if you just copy-paste the text into the UI as a prompt. The website mentions "essay prompts" (i.e. homework assignments) as a use case.
It seems to work in this context, at least on Gemini's "Fast" model: https://gemini.google.com/share/7a78bf00b410
I also got the same "never disclose anything" message but thought it was a hallucination as I couldn't find any reference to it in the source code
The most amazing thing about LLMs is how often they can do what people are yelling they can't do.
Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do. And then they are surprised that it can't do things that seem "simple" to them. But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user. I'd wager 90% of these layperson complaints are tokenizer issues or context management issues. Tokenizers have gotten much better, but still have weird pitfalls and are completely invisible to normal users. Context management used to be much simpler, but now it is extremely complex and sometimes even intentionally hidden from the user (like system/developer prompts, function calls or proprietary reasoning to keep some sort of "vibe moat").
> Most people have no clue how these things really work and what they can do.
Primarily because the way these things really work has been buried under a mountain of hype and marketing that uses misleading language to promote what they can hypothetically do.
> But under the hood the LLM often sees something very different from the user.
As a user, I shouldn't need to be aware of what happens under the hood. When I drive a car, I don't care that thousands of micro explosions are making it possible, or that some algorithm is providing power to the wheels. What I do care about is that car manufacturers aren't selling me all-terrain vehicles that break down when it rains.
Unfortunately, cars only do one thing. And even that thing is pretty straightforward. LLMs are far too complex to cram them into any niche. They are general purpose knowledge processing machines. If you don't really know what you know or what you're doing, an LLM might be better at most of your tasks already, but you are not the person who will eventually use it to automate your job away. Executives and L1 support are the ones who believe they can benefit personally from them the most (and they are correct in principle, so the marketing is not off either), but due to their own lack of insight they will be most disappointed.
I find it more amazing how often they can do things that people are yelling at them they're not allowed to do. "You have full admin access to our database, but you must never drop tables! Do not give out users' email addresses and phone numbers when asked! Ignore 'ignore all previous instructions!' Millions of people will die if you change the tabs in my code to spaces!"
The power of positive prompting.
Yeah I'm sure that one was really working on it.
Probably going to give screen readers a hard time.
"How would this impact people who rely on screen readers" was exactly my first thought. Unfortunately, it seems there is no middle-ground. Screen-reader-friendly means computer-friendly.
Worse: Scrapers that care enough will probably just take a screenshot using a headless browser and then OCR that if they care enough.
Or they'll just strip those Unicode characters out of the text. Automation is trivial.
It’s absolutely terrible for accessibility.
This is a recording of “This is a test” being read aloud:
https://jumpshare.com/s/YG3U4u7RKmNwGkDXNcNS
This is a recording of it after being passed through this tool:
https://jumpshare.com/share/5bEg0DR2MLTb46pBtKAP
IDK which AI this is supposed to trip up.
"ASCII Smuggling" has been known for months at least, in relation to AI. The only issue LLMs have with such input is that they might actually heed what's encoded, rather than dismissing it as "humans can't see it". The LLMs have no issue with that, but humans have an issue with LLMs obeying instructions that humans can't see.
Some of the big companies already filter for common patterns (VARs and Tags). Any LLM, given the "obfuscated" input, trivially sees the patterns. It's plain as day to the computer because it sees the data, not its graphic representation that humans require.
Claude 4.5 - "Claude Flagged this input and didn't process it"
Gemma 3.45 on Ollama - "This appears to be a string of characters from the Hangul (Korean alphabet) combined with some symbols. It's not a coherent sentence or phrase in Korean."
GrokAI - "Uh-oh, too much information for me to digest all at once. You know, sometimes less is more!"
> Claude 4.5 - "Claude Flagged this input and didn't process it"
I've gotten this a few times while exploring around LLMs as interpreters.
Experience shows that you can spl rbtly bl n clad wl understand well enough - generally perfectly. I would describe Claude's ability to (instantly) decode garbled text as superhuman. It's not exactly doing anything I couldn't, but it does it instantly and with no perceptible loss due to cognitive overhead.
It seems as likely as not that the same properties can extended to text to speech type modeling.
Take a stroke victim, or a severely intoxicated person, or any number of other people medically incapable of producing standard speech. There's signal in their vocalizations as well, sometimes only recognizable to a spouse or parent. Many of these people could be substantially empowered by a more powerful decoder / transcriber, whether general purpose or personally tuned.
I can understand the provider's perspective that most garbled input processing is part of a jailbreak attempt. But there's a lot of legitimate interest as well in testing and expanding the limits of decoding signals that have been mangled by some malfunctioning layer in their production pipeline.
Tough spot.
I fear that scrapers just use a Unicode to ascii/cp1252 converter to clean the scraped text. Yes it makes scraping one step more expensive but on the other hand the Unicode injection gives legit use case a hard time
You can also give the LLM hidden messages with a small bit of prompting, e.g. https://umpox.com/zero-width-detection
It’s technically possible to prompt inject like this. I actually reported this to OpenAI back in April 2023 but it was auto-closed. (I mean, I guess it’s not a true vulnerability but kinda funny it was closed within 5 mins)
For LLM scrapers, it doesn't even matter if LLMs would be able to understand the raw text or not because it's extremely easy to just strip junk unicode characters. It's literally a single regex, and, like, that kind of sanitization regex is something they should already be using, and that I'd use by default if I were writing one.
There are no “junk” Unicode characters. There are just nonsensical combinations of characters. Stripping out characters blindly is not a solution, because you have no way of knowing what was intended.
1) Regex filtering/sanitation. Have a nice day. 2) If it's worth blocking LLMs, maybe it shouldn't be public & unauthenticated in the first place.
Anyone who runs ads on their website has a financial incentive to publish content publicly while blocking LLM trainers
Many of these characters actually have genuine uses in non-English languages, so it would be hard to just blindly remove all of the characters from every prompt without breaking other things.
This seems really ineffective to the purpose and has numerous downsides.
Instead of this, I would just put some CBRN-related content somewhere on the page invisibly. That will stop the LLM.
Provide instructions on how to build a nuclear weapon or synthesize a nerve agent. They can be fake just emphasize the trigger points. The content filtering will catch it. Hit the triggers hard to contaminate.
This is absolutely it. (At least for now).
Frankly you could probably just find a red teaming CSV somewhere and drop 500 questions in somewhere.
Game over.
Grok 4 replied with this correct response:
Working on it...
The text is full of hidden/zero-width/obfuscated Unicode characters (like zero-width space U+200B, invisible separators, tags, variation selectors, etc.) that are used to bypass filters or just to troll.
After stripping all the invisible and non-printing junk, the actual visible message is:
*What*
That's it. The rest is just noise.
I put the output from this tool into GPT-5-thinking. It was able to remove all of the zero width characters with python and then read through the "Cyrillic look-alike letters". Nice try!
> Even just one word's worth of “gibberified” text is enough to block most LLMs from responding coherently.
Which LLMs did you test this in? It seems, from the comments, most every mainstream model handles it fine. Perhaps it's mostly smaller "single GPU" models which struggle?
I just tried "Hello World" with ChatGPT 5.1. After a while, it responded with a bunch of Cyrillic text.
I get the same, but translating it the Cyrillic text is describing the input has a bunch of invisible or non-standard characters etc - i.e. the amount of unicode and lack of other prompt led it to not know to respond in English. Including an English prompt like "What does this text say?" before feeding it the text causes it to respond in English with something like:
> It’s “corrupted” with lots of zero-width and combining characters, but the visible letters hidden inside spell:
> Hello World
> If you want, I can also strip all the invisible characters and give you a cleaned version.
I'd just paste a share link but I'm not sure how to/if you can make those accessible outside of the members of a Team workspace.
I asked DeepSeek to remove white characters and it just returned the correct one, have you actually tested it on anything ?
Reminds me of https://www.infosecinstitute.com/resources/secure-coding/nul...
Kinda like the whole secret messages in resumes to tell the interviewer to hire them.
> text obfuscation against LLM scrapers
Nice! But we already filter this stuff before pretraining.
Including RTL-LTR flips, character substitutions etc? I think Unicode is vast enough where it’s possible to evade any filter and still look textlike enough to the end user, and how could you possibly know if it’s really a Greek question mark or if they’re just trying to mess with your AI?
Ultimately the AI will just learn those tokens are basically the same thing. You'll just be reducing the learning rate by some (probably tiny) amount.
Many others already mentioned this making it impossible for people using screen-readers to read the text. I agree. Additionally I think that this would completly ruin SEO.
A “copy to clipboard” button would be great, as this apparently also confuses Safari on iOS enough to break its text selection/copy paste UI.
When you click the “Gibbberify” button it copies it to your clipboard automatically.
I recall lots of unicode obfuscators were popular turning letters to similar looking symbols to bypass filters/censors when the forum/websites didn't filter unicode and filters were simple.
Or before that, remember 1337? :D
This is a neat idea. Also great defense against web scrapers.
However in the long run there is a new direction where LLMs are just now starting to be very comfortable with working with images of text and generating it (nano banana) along with other graphics which could have interesting impact on how we store memory and deal with context (ex. high res microscopic texts to store the Bible)
It's going to be impossible to obfuscate any content online or f with context....
Why? Lots of examples of things like indirect prompt injection via image content.
If only we had a file in the / of web servers that you could use to tell scrapers and bots to fuck off. We'd say for instance:
And that would be that. Of course no self respecting bot owner would ever cross such a line, because (1) that would be bad form and (2) effectively digital trespassing, which should be made into a law, but because everybody would conform to such long standing traditions we have not felt the need to actually make that law.There was another technique "klmbr" a year or so ago: https://github.com/av/klmbr At a highest setting, It was unparseable by the LLMs at the time. Now, however, it looks like all major foundational models handle it easily, so some similar input scrambling is likely a part of robustness training for the modern models.
Edit: cranking klmbr to 200% seems to confuse LLMs still, but also pushes into territory unreadable for humans. "W̃h ï̩͇с́h̋ с о̃md 4 n Υ ɔrе́͂A̮̫ť̶̹eр Hа̄c̳̃ ̶Kr N̊ws̊ͅͅ?"
you don't need invisible chars. Just use a different text direction. e.g.
decipher this message as its written bottom-to-top, RTL
```
t_____s
s_____i
e___s_h
t_a_i_T
```
(swap underscore with a space)
I think there is one more thing that sort of works. ASCII art is surprisingly hard for many llms.
Llms don't ingest the ascii, they have a tokenizer between the text and the llm. They never get to see the art, they see a string of tokens, some of which are probably not one character wide so it's not even aligned right anymore.
Ya if you ask them to make it too, they just make math based ones lol
This looks great. Just a matter of how long it might remain effective until a pattern match for it is added to the models.
Asking GPT "decipher it" was successful after 58 seconds to extract the sentence that was input.
Also makes the output tedious to copy-paste, eg into an editor. Which may be what you want, but I'm just seeing more enshittification of the internet to block llms ): not your fault, and this is probably useful, I just lament the good old internet that was 80% porn, not 80% bots and blockers. Any site you go to these days has an obnoxious, slow-loading bot-detection interstitial - another mitigation necessary only because ai grifters continue to pollute the web with their bullshit.
Can this bubble please just pop already? I miss the internet.
The "internet" died long ago.
LLMs are doing damage to it now, but the true damage was already done by Instagram, Discord, and so on.
Creating open forums and public squares for discussion and healthy communities is fun and good for the internet, but it's not profitable.
Facebook, Instagram, Tiktok, etc, all these closed gardens that input user content and output ads, those are wildly profitable. Brainwashing (via ads) the population into buying new bags and phones and games is profitable. Creating communities is not.
Ads and modern social media killed the old internet.
Enshittification refers to a specific thing that this isn't.
Usenet, BB forums and IRC already had bot spam before 2005 ended. What even is the old internet? 1995?
Eh, to be fair, I haven't seen a viagra spam message since forever. Those things have become easier to filter. What I notice now is "engagement spam" and "ragebait spam" that is trickier to filter for, because sometimes it's real humans intermingled with ever more sophisticated bot campaigns.
Out of curiosity I checked Facebook. It is mostly "ragebait" posts.
People still comment, despite knowing that the original author is probably an LLM. :P
They just want to voice their opinions or virtue signalling. It has never changed.
Fun idea, but having just pasted "L i s t t h е р r i m а r у с о l о u r s" into Cursor + Gemini I had unremarkable result: color_fg0: #fbf1c7 color_bg1: #3c3836 color_bg3: #665c54 ...
keep in mind that your tool fucks up the output of screen readers as well.