Humans vs Bots

"That is literally the whole idea behind the Turing Test. Good luck. You'll need it."

This user thinks the idea is ambicious or even unreachbale. This indicates inicial ceticism.
We need to cleary explain the difference between Turing Test and us. We need to showcase real use cases.

"I worry about having to verify my identity with my ID that has my home address, since I am on political asylum in another country I do not give that piece of info so easily and I do not own land to be on public record. A data leak would be my main concern."

Strong concern about privacy, security and political context. This is a sign that our onboarding flow needs to offer ways of verification with different levels of exposition.

"I’m not sure how this would work or in what context. Sorry but this is an interesting idea that will probably have not a lot of practical value"

Unclear value. User understands the proposal, however can't see it on its day-to-day life.
We need to created contextualized journeys, on payments, social media, marketplaces, etc. We can also showcase before and after scenaries.

"One thing to consider with calling something "human verified" is whether that indicates it was simply fact checked by a human or the information was obtained by a human. Given how frequently humans are tricked by LLM inaccuracies and how LLMs leave out crucial information, I don't trust information just because a human fact checked the LLM's sentences."

Human verified might be ambigious. It can lead to wrong interpretations.
We need to test other terminologies like verified identity, or real human proof, live identity, etc.

"The real unlock won’t be proving someone’s human, it’ll be aligning that proof to risk-adjusted contexts."

The value is in contextualized the humanity proof as the risk, a forum has different need then a financial transaction.
We can introduce a design system with different levels of trust, like colors or badges. also an adaptative UI, on dating apps it displays only simple verifications, but on a financial transcation a bigger information is needed.

"In payments or compliance, “verified human” doesn’t mean much without continuous identity binding. Meanwhile in social or reputation apps, you need lightweight but credible heuristics, not full KYC."

More tecnical users sees that a single verification isn't enought, it needs continuous verification.

"You’ll also run into tradeoffs between privacy, friction, and enforcement. Browser extension means distribution friction. API means platform dependency. Neither solves the core trust UX unless your proof holds up against synthetic actors at scale."

Users understand the dilema between privacy/conviniece/security
We can try different onboarding (browser extension, API, standalone), we can A/B Test tradeoffs: "More privacy, less continuous binding" vs "More biding, less risk". We can invest in design patterns where users choose how far they go.