4 ms·
Hi! We have some details on potential attacks in practice in Section 7 and discuss how hard it would be to brute-force the watermark in Sec. 5, at least to our
by _jonas_ 4y ago
Hi! We have some details on potential attacks in practice in Section 7 and discuss how hard it would be to brute-force the watermark in Sec. 5, at least to our current knowledge.
One important thing though: By design this watermark has a low false-positive rate (human text flagged as machine generated). Human text is in expectation 50% whitelisted (because the watermark PRNG is unknown to the human writer) with a clearly defined variance. We can then carefully set up a hypothesis test to check for machine-generated text (see ROC curves in Fig.4), with tiny FPRs.
- ggm 4y agoAvoiding the false positives may be the biggest upside for many people. If (as I expect) the university system moves to a reproducible citation marker for saved GPT prompts, then peer review and marking can make an assessment about how much of the generated content emerged into the published work. If we treat it as a tool it can be declared and understood.