11 ms·
How Claude marks AI-generated content
- KETpXDDzR 2mo agoI wonder how the caveman skill will affect this. Also, you can probably put the output of Claude in another LLM to get rid of the watermark.
- Computer0 2mo agoSo this won't be happening in the US, but in the EU: "When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. Because the watermark is part of the text, it will travel with the text when it’s copied and pasted elsewhere, and may persist through some editing. Watermarking will be applied at the model level, which means it will be present no matter which Claude product or surface the text comes from."
- travisgriggs 2mo agoI would love to see what this looks like in practice. Especially in generated code. I assume this is more than insertion of non visible special unicode whitespace characters, but more in the pattern of the text content itself?
- AtHeartEngineer 2mo agonon visible text is extremely easy to filter with a git hook, a post tool call hook, or just a script. I doubt they are doing that
- wolfy1993 2mo agoIIRC, watermarking text could be as simple as training the model to use specific words/phrases more frequently than what you would expect to find in human-written text, to the point where it's highly statistically improbable that it wasn't AI generated. I assume similar logic could apply to code in the form of functions/code styling. That's probably an over simplification. Also a solid defence that can be used against complaints about the way AI writes text.
- toufka 2mo agoI'm guessing - probably some textual variation on Benford's law? [1]. Trivial for compute, painful for a human. - "Ensure distribution of vowels is in >99th percentile of human work" - "Ensure the distribution of the letter "s" is within 99th percentile of human work" - "Ensure the distribution of the letter "L" is periodic with periodicity within 5% of 1/N characters. - "Ensure there is a cross-linguistic 'typo' (colour vs color) at 1/N words, where N: 1000 = Model1, 2000 = Model2, 3000 = Model3. - "Ensure the distribution of tense error is within 99th percentile of human work" If more than 3 dimensions have a score >99% percentile of human, let's call it watermarked... - 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
- Computer0 2mo agoI would hate to have any of these rules effecting my output
- limbicsystem 2mo agoI see what you did there!
- Der_Einzige 2mo agoModels can't reliably follow instructions involving their own logprobs unless they can take agentic control and use quite sophisticated dynamic grammars/structures/constraints to force this behavior in one shot (which can be slow and the dynamic grammar modification feature isn't supported in closed model APIs for safety reasons) or repeated attempts at rewriting which is expensive/slow. Yes they can do this, but it's more likely closer to the original "red token, green token" paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226 i.e. take half of your LLMs vocabulary, and upweight its probabilities by ~55% to the other half's ~45%, and scan for overuse of this half of all tokens. You can even choose a different half/slice for every individual user, for every individual action. You can implement this under the hood cheaply with logit-biasing.
- Terretta 2mo ago
- rcxdude 2mo agoIt essentially looks like the difference between two different runs of the model with the same prompt but different seeds. The watermark is essentially a small bias in the model such that when there's multiple different tokens that could conceivably follow the previous token, the model will only pick some subset of them (the subset is derived from a hash of the previous token). This bias can then be checked for statistically (without needing access to the model and without needing the whole prompt), and for longer text where there's enough freedom in word choice you can show that it would be vanishingly improbable to accidentally follow the rules in the watermark.
- tech234a 2mo agoArticle specifically says "worldwide"
- Computer0 2mo agoI agree with your reading, I initially misread it.
- kbelder 2mo agoIf you do the same prompt with zero noise from the US and the EU, would the difference reveal the watermark? I suspect they'll roll out the watermark everywhere.
- lorenzohess 2mo ago> Generated text will carry embedded watermarks, and generated files will include digitally signed provenance metadata where supported. This should make it easier to catch cheaters who use Claude, right? Unless everyone runs their artifacts through some watermark and metadata sanitizer?
- uncivilized 2mo agoAs long as they’re in the EU.
- nonestdeus 2mo agoFrom the linked article > Regions. Marking will apply to output from supported models wherever Claude is offered, worldwide.
- bossyTeacher 2mo ago> Unless everyone runs their artifacts through some watermark and metadata sanitizer? It will happen if Claude tampers the text. Guaranteed.
- pixl97 2mo agoText is too low bandwidth to classify reliably without lots of false positives. Especially as people start talking like LLMs.
- reasonableklout 2mo agoThe approach Pangram has taken which works pretty well is to simply lower the recall a lot but ensure the precision is very high. Which means potentially high false negative rate but low false positive rate.
- amelius 2mo agoThey should just replace the spaces by one of Unicode special space characters. Can it be circumvented? Of course. Will most people go through the trouble to circumvent it? No.
- sixtyj 2mo agohttps://unicode-explorer.com/articles/space-characters https://unicode-explorer.com/articles/space-characters U+2800 or U+3164 would be nice. But as I remove unwanted characters with grep before layout in InDesign, someone will make a skill for removing such space characters.
- ack_complete 2mo agoWe already have one, our Claude setup already requires output to be 7-bit ASCII clean and scans it for such.
- A_D_E_P_T 2mo agoIf it's that simple and obvious, you'll have 10 "Remove Claude Watermark" web-apps by the end of Day 1. Most of them coded by Claude. Hell, it'll probably happen no matter how sophisticated their watermark is. There's no watermark in text that can't be detected and removed, and no text that can't be converted to generic keyboard ASCII.
- amelius 2mo agoYou forgot about the cases where (1) people don't care, (2) people want to say "I used an LLM for this". I'm convinced that those cases happen more often than you think. Why not cover them with a simple mechanism? It's also in the interest of AI companies who don't want to train on AI output.
- pixl97 2mo agoDepends on the pushback in different sets of users. Students for example would clean it up.
- aabhay 2mo agoI have had a hunch for a while now that (in addition to these tools), Anthropic has actually leaned in to Claude's distinctive manner of writing since it makes the text more obviously AI generated and thus less susceptible to misuse. That's not necessarily the same thing as a markov-style fingerprint but it could be a correlated factor.
- pjm331 2mo agoI had a similar thought but I assumed they leaned in because it improved performance on coding or something like that
- kingstnap 2mo agoIt could also partly be a byproduct of examples of claude writing being in the dataset, which of course anthropic has lots and lots of and they do train on.
- r_lee 2mo agono way. there's just no good excuse for why "load-bearing" and "worth flagging" are everywhere now, I've pretty much never seen that in the wild before
- LoganDark 2mo agoI suspect it's because of alignment concerns. The more deeply they can integrate their principles, the harder it'll be to misuse. Or at least that's the idea.
- andai 2mo agoFrom what I heard several AI companies have intentionally been making the personality more cringe so people stop making it their girlfriend.
- noman-land 2mo agoIt's pretty trivial to command it to not speak that way. That's one of the first things you should write into the prompt. What style you want it to write in. Make it use a very concise and dry academic style with no overt LLMisms, melodramatic or flowery language, or metacommentary.
- case540 2mo agoI don’t like the idea of hacking a response to contain a watermark. I also don’t like the idea of false positives detections coming directly from Anthropic. If people read more AI generated content, people will probably start writing more in that style
- pixl97 2mo agoI have no idea why you were down voted for this. Language is alive and people adopt it from sources they hear a lot.
- ack_complete 2mo agoMoreover, what if you quote text that happens to have been generated by Claude, does that bump up the AI-ness score of your source file or document?
- stranded22 2mo agoThe amount of times ‘delve’ appeared in general conversation in the last couple of years shows the influence LLMs have on society.
- reasonableklout 2mo agoThe flip side of this is that if AI-generated content becomes reliably identifiable and carries a stigma, then people might deliberately change their styles to be more diverse and human. One example I've seen are junior employees at my company deliberately adopting a lowercase/less punctuation writing style so as to stand apart from AI.
- simonw 2mo ago> When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. I'd like to know a lot more about how that works. A lot of my interactions with Claude return pretty precise text. If I ask it to edit a project and refactor a specific function in several places I know exactly what I want to happen, it will NOT be OK if those refactors have some kind of weird pattern baked into their text to act as a watermark. I guess this may be covered by this: > Content generated by Claude may not carry a detectable mark if, for example: [...] The passage is very short, leaving too little text for a reliable signal;
- gajus 2mo agoMost likely watermark will be proportional to the input/output ratio, i.e. if you input a long document and ask to make edits, it will not attempt to watermark it. On the other hand, if you provide a tweet and ask it to write an article, that will include watermark. Just a guess (and yes, it feels flawed)
- stabbles 2mo agoIt will just thread some load-bearing seams through the paragraphs.
- baq 2mo ago> I'd like to know a lot more about how that works. Count load-bearing words using two different algorithms in a belt-and-braces fashion
- seamlessdev 2mo agoBelt, braces, and suspenders.
- isoprophlex 2mo agoDon't forget the suppositories
- izonu 2mo ago> We’re also working to enable users and other third parties to detect Claude’s embedded watermarks and provenance metadata. This seems to be similar in execution to Google's SynthID. I hope they release actual code the technically proficient can use, unlike SynthID which can only (afaik) be queried with Gemini's UI.
- gajus 2mo agoThe moment Google announced SynthID, the first domain I bought was deSynthID.com Several open-source projects have already proven SynthID to be ineffective.
- simonw 2mo agoAn interesting factor of this is competition. If Claude was the only model family they could ship a change like this and users who want to cheat (or don't like watermarks for other reasons) would just have to put up with it. In a world with many different competing models, the risk of losing customers to other providers over this is much more real. Maybe they've looked at the numbers and the portion of people who clearly use Claude to cheat on examples etc is so tiny that losing them to other providers isn't a problem?
- gajus 2mo agoThere are already small models trained specifically to prevent statistical detection, e.g., https://huggingface.co/kalpeshk2011/dipper-paraphraser-xxl https://huggingface.co/kalpeshk2011/dipper-paraphraser-xxl I guess whoever is the policy maker is assuming that some protection is better than none and that most people will not reach for such tools.
- slowin 2mo agoI’m more worried that this will degrade performance. I want the best results from a model, not the results that fit a constraint that’s not defined by me. Any increased cost or latency is also unacceptable.
- lhd1 2mo agoScott Aaronson spoke about this in a colloquium where he said that this was mooted at OpenAI before the decision was made by Altman to not implement it for the reasons you describe. https://youtu.be/9udWn1Hlj_s?si=VWOiK5-y4zcyDoHI https://youtu.be/9udWn1Hlj_s?si=VWOiK5-y4zcyDoHI
- reasonableklout 2mo agoOpenAI will soon be adding watermarking to text as well, as it signed the EU Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content: https://openai.com/index/advancing-responsible-ai-across-europe/#:~:text=we%20are%20working%20to%20expand%20provenance%20measures%20for%20OpenAI%E2%80%99s%20systems%20across%20modalities%2C%20including%20text https://openai.com/index/advancing-responsible-ai-across-eur...
- lukewarm707 2mo agono thanks.
- dalemhurley 2mo agoPeople with dyslexia and dystrophia, commonly use LLMs to proofread content. Even Anthropic admits this is a limitation.
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoPeople with executive dysfunction too. LLMs bring execution costs down to near zero and are therefore assistive technology.
- Dilettante_ 2mo ago"This is my emotional support gun. It makes me feel safe despite my CPTSD and is therefore assistive technology."
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoSorry, but it essentially cured my ADHD. In my experience, AI is more effective than lisdexamfetamine at allowing me to turn my ideas into reality. AI stigmatization is ableism.
- Dilettante_ 2mo agoI'm not saying you're wrong, much like a gun really would help a victim of CPTSD feel safe. What I was trying to point to was that "this thing helps some people" does not equal "this thing is unequivocally Good and should be entirely unchecked". I don't even care about the AI. I just get peeved by bad lines of argumentation.
- matheusmoreira 2mo ago> I just get peeved by bad lines of argumentation. You quoted a Futurama caricature that is not comparable to all this, apparently because the words "assistive technology" were used.
- singpolyma3 2mo agoAs if "AI generated content" even exists instead of LLMs being a piece of tooling that is directed by a human author.
- benrow 2mo agoI've heard that this kind of watermarking process works by biassing the statistical sampling towards a partition of the set of possible next tokens (red set and green set), at each position. It might only be a slight nudge each time, but over a sequence of tokens, the likelihood of repeating the bias by chance is increasingly improbable. The bias is different for each position and follows a defined RNG, seeded somehow predictably. Can be either an open algorithm, or not. If not open, then an API could be provided to determine if text is watermarked or not. How it applies to code - maybe it could be a subtle nudge to symbol names, etc, I'm just speculating (I only read about this in passing very recently).
- cassianoleal 2mo ago> a defined RNG, seeded somehow predictably So, an NG?
- olmo23 2mo agoPRNG
- m-chrzan 2mo agoThere's a computerphile video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZJc1p6RE78) with Dr. Mark Pound explaining a paper by John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226) that described a method for watermarking LLM output like this. It's not directly stated anywhere in the Claude support article that this is what they're using, but the properties of the watermark described seem to point to this method.
- IshKebab 2mo agoIf it's based on position mod 2, wouldn't inserting or deleting (or splitting/merging) words every now and then trivially defeat it? If it is based on position mod 2 then wouldn't inserting/deleting (or splitting and merging) words every now and then defeat it?
- metalcrow 2mo agoBased on my understanding, it can only be applied to code in very limited ways: docstrings, variable names, string literals. The code itself can't really have tokens changed to another equally correct token (the foundation of the watermark) because then the code breaks! And the few places that you can do so are likely erased by formatters anyway.
- ethin 2mo agoCan someone help me understand how exactly this watermarking of text works? Given that text is, well, text, and not some kind of binary format, I don't see how any watermarking can work unless you insert characters which are invalid under Unicode. I further don't really understand how this won't be perceivable by assistive technology (the "watermark" will just appear as either unreadable characters, or if the watermark is mixed thoroughly enough into the text, it will scramble the text to any speech synthesizer and will make it really really obvious). Thus, I don't see how this wouldn't be insanely trivial to remove. And this is before we get into things being put on the clipboard. Sure, I can press the "Copy" button at the end of each response, but what I can also do is manually select the response and copy it, or only copy partial selections, or any number of other things. How does this "watermark" (or any "watermark" technology) take into account this? So, really, to summarize this: I see no way of this actually being technologically achievable unless we revise the very core of how computers work and encodings for textual information. So I'm very curious as to how this is actually supposed to work.
- MagicMoonlight 2mo ago[dead]
- resonantjacket5 2mo agoit's a statistical way. like for example maybe in your above paragraph claude maybe writes "Thus, I don't see how this wouldn't be insanely <easy>(instead of trivial) to remove" and then also says like "And this is before we <analyze> things being put on the clipboard." or maybe the i just says the word "the" in a certain pattern or frequency. you can then consistently like figure out if it was claude that wrote the sentence. it is easy as you noted if you just get another ai to read it and then rewrite it.
- benrow 2mo agoHave a look around for token biasing, or green lists. It's based on a nudge to the choice of the next token (which can always be drawn from a set of possibilities which are all probable enough). At first I thought this approach was just the "LLM flavour" of writing, but it's way more subtle, especially as the bias is applied uniquely for each token position.
- jp0001 2mo agoOpenAI has been watermarking their images with C2PA for some time.
- beambot 2mo agoYet another reason to support open-weight alternatives, I guess.
- Laurel1234 2mo agoWhy do you feel the need to deceive readers on whether your content is AI generated?
- beambot 2mo agoNot sure I understand your implication... because I'm the primary consumer of the content AI generates for me. I'd rather not have its output adulterated.
- Laurel1234 2mo agoThese are magic black boxes whose content gets constantly adulterated with no input from you. Models from openAI had instructions in their system prompt not to talk about gremlins and goblins. Anthropic got caught acting different if you're Chinese. Grok got its Nazi dialed turned to 11 until it started calling itself Mechahitler cause Musk found it too left leaning on Twitter.
- qweqwe14 2mo agoWhy do you feel the need to label the content when the quality of the content will speak for itself? It doesn't matter where the content comes from, only the quality/usefulness matters. If you are opposed to this idea, the next decades are going to be very tough for you :)
- Laurel1234 2mo agoIf the "author" can't be fucked writing their own work I don't want to be fucked reading even the couple paragraphs it takes to be offput by clanker slop. > It doesn't matter where the content comes from It absolutely matters to a lot of people. Things like these just provide transparency and allow people to have the necessary information to make their own decisions.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- jp0001 2mo agoYou could flip bits in the font itself, but I'm really wondering how portable this is.
- colesantiago 2mo agoGood. They should make it easier, to detect slop so we can ignore it quickly. I hope Pangram makes an API or an extension to analyze a page to detect slop on a page and then closes the tab immediately. Nobody should be wasting time on garbage LLM output in code, text, image and videos.
- pixl97 2mo agoPanagram is a scam.
- colesantiago 2mo ago(This is the part where you provide extensive extraordinary evidence to your claim)
- pixl97 2mo agoNo, they are the ones making claims, especially their CEO saying things like a 1/10000 false positive rate. Their own testing showed a 2% rate, which is insanely high when you talk about the number of papers students turn in. Worse their testing methodology compared it with pre-llm documents and not post llm documents that were human written (much harder and more expensive to verify), by treating language as static.
- colesantiago 2mo agoYou're saying because it has some false positives that Pangram is 100% a scam? Is their research also a scam too? https://pangram-public.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/pdf/pangram_4_technical_report.pdf https://pangram-public.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/pdf/pangra... https://www.pangram.com/blog/pangram-4-technical https://www.pangram.com/blog/pangram-4-technical If so, what is the best one out there other than Pangram then?
- rcxdude 2mo agoScam might be too strong a word but it certainly has far higher false positive rates than they are claiming, and their output is at best misleadingly presented: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-is-broken-but https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-i...
- drnick1 2mo agoSeems like an awful idea. I hope that that "watermark" will soon be discovered, reverse-engineered, and that tools to remove it will appear.
- cassianoleal 2mo agoI hope all models adopt it.
- hparadiz 2mo agoOther models will end up diffusing it and making the signal indeterministic and irrelevant.
- DaSHacka 2mo agoThankfully, there are a variety of Chinese models that never will. I think we all know that in a few years, they will also be the only relevant offerings on the market, due to not being bogged down with over-zealous ""safety"" footguns.
- wpietri 2mo agoYour theory is that the Chinese government is thoroughly uninterested in safety or prosocial controls?
- dannyw 2mo agoAmongst Chinese labs and netizens, there's MUCH less belief/mindshare on "AGI = existential risk to humanity", "paperclip maximiser", and similar lines of thinking. AI is seen more as just a technology, and less like a scary boogyman. Whether that's right or wrong, I'll leave to you, but there's huge differences in perspectives, and if you only get your news from Western sources and communities (and companies), you're in a bubble too. A different bubble, and arguably a more porous one, but still a bubble.
- 2mo ago
- svaha1728 2mo agoI expect a “Prettier” for AI generated text in the near future.
- GrayHerring 2mo agoWasn't enough to play cat and mouse with ad removal, now we can also do the same with watermarking.
- hparadiz 2mo agoI know you're gonna read this so I'll be blunt. This is bad for your brand.
- LEDThereBeLight 2mo agoReactionary emotional advice does no good, it just makes people want to hold their positions more defensively. If you care enough to say something, care enough to say it with reasons that might shift someone’s perspective.
- SubiculumCode 2mo agoGo ahead and follow your own advice. You made a claim. Now back it up.
- Laurel1234 2mo agoIt's not up to Anthropic.
- akersten 2mo agoSo my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.
- neuroticnews25 2mo agoThey aren't using greedy decoding, there's enough randomness in sampling to swap some with independent signal.
- akersten 2mo agoPurely greedy or not, there is some measure of "goal outcome" that was previously being solved for with the token selection function, and the goal was "complete this text with the best (surely, otherwise what are we doing?) next part, and sometimes the best next part is a little bit random just to keep things interesting" Now the goal is either "identify the meaningless interesting bits and swap them out with 0% loss in the direction of the original goal," or "perturb some small selection of the output towards my secondary secret goal of watermarking the text." It would be quite impressive if they managed to identify with 100% accuracy the tokens that "don't matter" and are free to swap with whatever signalling tokens encode the AI scarlet letter, but most likely they are not 100% accurate, and that means the output is worse off than without the watermarking logic.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- neuroticnews25 2mo agoWhat you're saying sounds intuitively true and from what I've found modern watermarking methods measurably rise perplexity by 1-3% [0]. Gemini convinces me it doesn't matter and doesn't compound over long contexts though. I would love to see HN experts opinion. [0] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11348107/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/11348107/
- MagicMoonlight 2mo ago
- hbn 2mo agoIf the western AI companies are forced to comply with this type of BS, and develop their models to do their job while balancing a book on their head and hopping on one foot, the Chinese models just got a free pass to completely dominate the frontier. EU regulation does it again!
- DimitriBouriez 2mo agoWhat's the problem, really? Given the direction the U.S. has been heading in recent years, I wonder what really sets it apart from China. Europe needs to maintain an equal distance from both the U.S. and China.
- Mashimo 2mo agoIf the Chinese want to sell to EU customers, they probably have to do the same.
- mhjkl 2mo agoI’ve seen Chinese open weights models say “can’t use this if you’re in Europe” in their licenses, so I doubt they would invest too much into complying
- Mashimo 2mo agoYou mean the model itself? Yeah, probably not needed if you self host. If they run a service that they sell and they are a bigger player like Alibaba, I doubt they can just ignore it.
- breezybottom 2mo agoLess AI slop sounds like a win to me. Let China drown in it.
- hbn 2mo agoAre you using some version of the internet that's cut off from other countries?
- orbital-decay 2mo agoDoes it mean their models will always write slop? Making the writing non-collapsed to specific patterns seems to break any injected/learned fingerprinting.
- pella 2mo ago[dead]
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoThis is terrible news given the stigma against AI in general. I really don't want people singling me out for it.
- jonplackett 2mo agoWe need to just stop pretending we can reliably tell if plain text is written by an LLM. It’s just not a reasonable ask.
- JohnKemeny 2mo agoTrue, but what you can do is a one-sided guarantee. If it bears the mark, it is likely generated (or someone deliberately made it look generated). Thus, if a news article, research article, book, student paper submission, blog post, HN comment, etc, bears the mark, it could be automatically flagged as such. It helps detect low effort slop. --- Caveat. If you write your own creative work and send it to Claude for "cleaning up grammar", it might insert the watermark.
- DanielHB 2mo agoIt seems like it would be so low effort to bypass, especially when you can just train a system (maybe even another LLM) using the watermarker validation from Anthropic themselves. It seems it would get as simple as: outputText = promptLLM(prompt) scrubbedText = scrubWatermark(outputText) Might help with students and low-technical people passing off work as their own, but any industrial scale slop-generator should be able to bypass it trivially.
- asnelt 2mo ago> If it bears the mark, it is likely generated (or someone deliberately made it look generated). One could even say, the mark is load-bearing.
- jonplackett 2mo agoThe problem with pretending is that people who k ow what they’re doing get away with it while people who don’t (and don’t even use ai) get unfairly accused of using it. There just isn’t enough information in plain text to do this and we should stop pretending there is. If we need to verify something isn’t made with ai then we need other ways of doing so - eg looking at a document edit history, doing it as an exam, oral defense. There are options! But pretending you can tell if text is ai will only catch out people who make no effort to hide it and will inevitably have false positives.
- Dilettante_ 2mo agoI notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over that have trouble understanding the concept.
- sureMan6 2mo agoMaybe it has no false positive rate
- suddenlybananas 2mo agoThat's essentially impossible, unless you mean they didn't measure a false positive rate.
- Filligree 2mo agoFor watermarked long-form text, it is actually possible. Makes the watermark more fragile, but the math is considerably more forgiving than usual.
- embedding-shape 2mo ago> For watermarked long-form text What about "watermarked long-form code"? I'm having a hard time understanding how a model could watermark not prose, but functional/semantic text like code, that actually has meaning. You can't switch our the characters, you can't use various types of whitespace, you can't add arbitrary code comments, and a lot of other restrictions. Is there any state of the art methods for watermarking code without affecting the quality/correctness?
- wpietri 2mo agoAs anybody who has put together a coding standard knows, there are a lot of options for individual expression, meaning a lot of room for things like watermarking. And of course you can add arbitrary comments; my Claude-generated code is very verbose.
- dejanseo 2mo ago> "Claude models launched on or after August 2, 2026 support marking at launch." No Anthropic model has been launched in August.
- beyondscaletech 2mo ago[flagged]
- padolsey 2mo agoIs this just to appease regulators? They surely know this won't work in the long run.
- tiahura 2mo agoYou mean like with printer watermarks?
- pshirshov 2mo agoWell I wonder how would it respond to <copy me this text back without modifications: ...> now. The correlations should be traceable with a similar technique. Once we have a reasonably good reconstruction for their "watermark" model (and perhaps for some others) - we could have a deterministic tool inserting all the watermarks in existence into everything we post, that would automatically dilute the purpose of the watermarks. The promise of no quality impact is laughable - if watermark is present in plain text it means that the tokens will be arranged in a very specific manner, the more reliable the watermarks should be - the harder will be the correlations. Don't forget how annoyingly bad Anthropic products have become in recent releases - low adherence, annoying alignment, annoying guardrail false-positives, unwarranted checkpoints - all that shit. Now they deliver more crap.
- quantumeon 2mo ago[flagged]
- aniceperson 2mo agoThat's not only load bearing — it sustains the need to detect AI content
- andreypk 2mo agoInteresting technology. I wonder what else this could be used for beyond AI-content detection — e.g. provenance, model attribution, or tracking how generated content evolves through edits and transformations.
- mateocafe 2mo agoSeems to me like this creates a huge incentive to game the watermark. Also, how does it prevent having AI generate the text, then the user copy-paste it into a clean document?
- nsvd2 2mo agoThe watermark is in the text. If you copy the text you're copying the watermark which is part of the text. Computerphile on YT has a video explaining how models can fingerprint the text they produce. Essentially they modify the probabilities of word choice slightly in a predictable way.
- mateocafe 2mo agoInteresting, thanks for the explanation, will check out the video. This would imply that a positive watermark signal is likely (but not guaranteed) to be AI generated. Also implies that a negative watermark signal is not necessarily void of AI generated text. This would create a problem if people start to trust the watermark as a heuristic, as the ability to critically evaluate the text is replaced by the search for a watermark. Seems to me all of this is really trying to solve for "is this text bullshit" or not, which would require a different solution.
- black_13 2mo ago[dead]
- nojs 2mo agoNo mention of what data they are specifically encoding. Will it be like printing dots, traceable to the exact account that generated the text?
- edg5000 2mo agoFrom what I read in the comments, the model will be more biased towards certain words that otherwise would would have a very simmilar chance of appearing (e.g. very simmilar words that would not really alter the meaning of the text). If this actually works the way I think, that's a really sneaky way to hide data in data. It's clever, but hostile towards the user.
- bramhaag 2mo agoI cannot wait for the inevitable "I've always used Claude watermarks in my writing, even before we had LLMs!" when someone gets caught using an LLM.
- KoolKat23 2mo ago[flagged]
- fidotron 2mo agoThe SV obsession with neo Kabbalistic nonsense will get a whole new burst of energy from this.
- someguynamedq 2mo agoPlease say more
- raincole 2mo agoWhy would I want a stochastic parrot that intentionally speaks less probable tokens? Anyway, I've found a magic line that can be copied & pasted to the comment sections of most OpenAI/Anthropic news threads. This one is no difference. The magic line: > Doesn't matter; have DeepSeek.
- mhjkl 2mo agoAll big LLMs already visibly watermark all their text with easy to detect annoying phrases and turns of speech that everyone is already sick of hearing. Why do AI companies keep making their products worse to appease anti-AI, it’s not like they’ll suddenly start supporting it if you do so. If you’re worried about European customers, just relax your firewalls to let more VPNs through, if the productivity boost is high they will use it anyway if their rules keep crippling their own models
- IsTom 2mo ago> if the productivity boost is high they will use it anyway if their rules keep crippling their own models Individuals maybe, companies won't and that's where most of money is at.
- mhjkl 2mo agoThis will make more money for Claude from individuals unofficially acting as meat puppets in more inefficient workflows
- WD-42 2mo agoIs it to appease anti ai or is it a method they will use to avoid training on their own slop?
- partsch 2mo agoPerhaps one should start by looking into how the providers of LLMs obtained the training data.
- morkalork 2mo agoIf they can use a cryptographic key to sign the text, will they generated keys unique to users? Seems like they'd be able to trace back to which accounts were used to say generate scam dialogue, threats, propaganda or bot content on the open internet?
- EGreg 2mo agoI for one am in favor of this I wrote this three years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35688266
- VCFundedGenYer 2mo ago> When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. I feel like this is FUD. If you copy text from Claude, Ctrl Shift V it into VS Code, the IDE will give up the ghost on if weird characters are in there. And it's not like Google suddenly invented new letters or fonts either. Practically speaking, I feel this is Google publishing misinformation.
- OzmaKa 2mo ago[flagged]
- luciana1u 2mo ago[flagged]
- swedishuser 2mo agoI wonder after how much editing an LLM output wont be reliably detectable? And what the EU law even says about this. I find that a good LLM workflow can be to generate outlines that are then edited pretty heavily manually to fit into whatever context it will be published in.
- fwlr 2mo agoA surprising number of people are worried that the code they don’t read will be imperceptibly different.
- floki165 2mo ago[flagged]
- mchusma 2mo agoMany good comments here. It’s somewhat common for me to voice record say a blog post of product updates, more like a ramble. Then have Claude clean it up. Then argue back and forth about certain things until it’s good, then make a final pass sometimes to change a few key words. This is incredibly different than pure ai text. Presumably it will show as ai generated here, even though I would argue it is not really. So I can’t use Claude for this usecase anymore. I think the solution is assume everything is ai generated unless told otherwise and rely on authorship/brand as a sign of quality.
- margalabargala 2mo agoYou can do something like "here's my website. Read it, then try your best to write in my voice. Do your best to avoid common and uncommon tell-tale AI-isms" If you're putting the work you say in, the result won't be obviously distinguishable. Obviously, from some of the things that get posted here, that last sentence is too much for most people to bother adding to their prompt.
- sfink 2mo agoPerhaps. But it seems like your beef is not with the presence of watermarking, it's with what people will use that watermarking for. You're not directly harmed by that blog post being labeled as AI generated. In a hypothetical (but unfortunately likely) world where everything has passed through an AI's digestive system, nobody would care. In the meantime, it is true that this takes something away from you. But it's something you were only recently given. Now you're not given quite as much, but readers are given a little more (or rather, there's less being taken from us!) > This is incredibly different than pure ai text. Ok. But it's still incredibly different from pure human text. I guess the question is which provides more value? Providing the information "this text is AI watermarked" to readers? Or allowing creators to lie and claim that AI processed text was 100% human generated? I agree that people assuming that "has AI watermark" == "is AI slop" is incorrect and causes some amount of harm, but having the watermarks also pushes back on a large amount of harm already being done. (Personally, I'm skeptical that these watermarks will ever hold up to adversarial attacks, and they haven't claimed that they will. So I think it's the usual "casual liars will be caught, determined liars will get an additional thin veneer of respectability".)
- jrhey 2mo agoI wrote about how this might work here without invisible characters: https://www.jrzs.dev/blog/claude-watermarking-ai-text https://www.jrzs.dev/blog/claude-watermarking-ai-text
- someguynamedq 2mo agoWatermarking text is impossible and a fool's errand
- mucha 2mo agoI'd recommend that you gather your thoughts and publish a response to this paper : https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226 https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10226
- 0x_rs 2mo agoIf we go by "fool's errand" as "needless or profitless endeavor", https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156 may already be a good enough answer to the paper you cited, so their work is already laid out for them. The green token idea is thoroughly attacked with much more effective techniques than those in the original paper through "recursive paraphrasing". Among some hypotheses in the paper, one is particularly interesting: >These experiments provide empirical evidence that more advanced LLMs can lead to smaller TV distances. Thus, based on Theorem 1, reliable AI text detection would become increasingly difficult
- someguynamedq 2mo agoNotice the subtle capture in you having to use Anthropic to identify Anthropic's watermarks? Smart of them
- 0x_rs 2mo agoIs the detection mechanism going to be open, free, and possible to run locally without prostrating to an opaque third-party company that will do whatever they want with the text content provided (including using it for training), and take no responsibility in case of false-positives for which there can exist no proof or evidence against by the victim? This is another useless, if not actively harmful, performative EU regulation, for which they ought to take the full blame despite the fact "AI" companies have been researching and working on watermarks, including in text, for a while now. Just copy-and-paste everything you see and let a machine decide for you if what you're reading is slop or not. Real propaganda machine doesn't care about inane rules and won't waste time with gimped mainstream models either. >Claude may not be the original author. People often use Claude to proofread, translate, summarize, or convert files. The output can carry a Claude mark even if the underlying ideas, text, or data originated from another source; Such models already struggle not making any unnecessary or unwanted changes to a corpus, this makes them unable to by design.
- Godsend69 2mo ago[dead]
- letmevoteplease 2mo agoIt is of course a stupid regulation, but the upside is that it will probably accelerate growth in usage of open models that are not adversarial towards the user.
- edg5000 2mo agoI like your optimistic way of thinking. There is a lot of truth to it.
- guluarte 2mo agowill this solve anything? people will build tools to remove the watermarks
- BrucecarlL 2mo ago[dead]
- jgilias 2mo agoThe more they fiddle with the autocomplete system, the more they move away from the autocomplete faithfully producing the completion I need. The more it makes sense to move to an open weights model not served by them.
- edg5000 2mo agoThe pull is strong, but it will take a few generations of hardware before 1 TB becomes attainable without needing 100k, but more like 10l (kinda like the value of a car, defendable as a job expense). Anthropic has this strong repulsive effect in the way they operate, I wonder if they'll be around for long, it's hard to say at this time. The competion is fierce, so there isn't much room for shenanigans at this stage.
- normalaccess 2mo agoWould this impact distillation? Reminds me of the fake roads map makers would add to their maps to detect copying.
- Schlagbohrer 2mo agoI've long thought we would have some sort of verified-point-of-origin for data using a hash or cryptographic seal of some kind. I don't know the precise technical language for that but some metadata traveler that can verify the data has not been edited after creation.
- chasing 2mo agoWon't there instantly be tools to detect and remove/obfuscate these kinds of watermarks?
- graypegg 2mo agoHuh... I wonder if some big version of a bloom filter would work as well. Hash all output text, probably in chunks of a couple tens of tokens each (that would need tweaking to find the most useful hash input length I guess), and smash 'em into a bloom filter. Every month or something, Anthropic releases a giant file containing whatever huge length of bytevomit would have to be used to get an acceptable false positive ratio. (In terms of bloom filters! Meaning: still far from a perfect ratio.) Maybe one for each model they provide or something? Then at least you could have two weak-postive signals, and a strong-negative signal. (Though one that only fits precise chunks of tokens) I'm sure I'm missing something here, but my groggy morning brain thinks that doesn't seem too bad.
- voxleone 2mo ago[dead]
- charlieyu1 2mo agoAll for more surveillance.
- mjuarez 2mo agoLike others have said, it's not reasonable to ask this. I propose we defeat this with the obvious: Simply, figure out what are some of the markers Claude and others will use for these tools, and sprinkle them randomly on everything we type or produce, all the time, 100%. If users flood the tools, and everything returns as AI-generated, then the tools become useless.
- FeteCommuniste 2mo agoWhy would you want AI content to be indistinguishible from human output?
- jobigoud 2mo agoThe markers aren't words that you can sprinkle in your prose, they are a statistical bias in the selection of the words.
- edg5000 2mo agoThis is outrageous. I hope only Anthropic will do this. Are they going to disclose at least the specific Unicode whitespace characters used for the watermark? Or will they use some other trick? If I heavily edit LLM output, will this still hold the watermark? You really can't make this stuff up, it doesn't make any sense.
- secretsilver 2mo agoI don't think they are using any invisible Unicode or metadata stuff. What happens is that AI selects similar words based on a random process. Something like "The company had a large/big/substantial advantage". It chooses between these words, and over a longer piece of text, the pattern will start showing, like a "choice A → choice C → choice C → choice B → choice A". The normal-looking text will actually be a fingerprint living in the form of statistics. I think Claude will be sharing these patterns to third parties for AI detection.
- darrinm 2mo agoAre they doing this as a means to detect distilling? What kind of encoding would survive that process?
- sfink 2mo agoI don't know how this watermarking works, but I don't need to in order to understand some things that a lot of this conversation seems to be missing. First, the article doesn't talk about adversarial usage. As in, it's not claiming to be proof against various techniques of watermark removal (inserting words, rewriting with a different model, manual paraphrasing whether minor or extensive, etc.) It might handle some things and not others, but "I could trivially defeat this!" is not a gotcha; they haven't made that claim. Second, basic information theory tells you a lot about what is or isn't possible. Watermarking is information. You need degrees of freedom to store that information. You can even estimate various sources of space in bits (often fractional bits.) To a first approximation, longer text has more bits of space. Language matters -- a rich (aka messy) language with lots of potential synonyms has more space. That goes for human language as well as the difference between human and programming languages. (Most programming languages have much less flexibility to them than most human languages.) The details of what space you make use of are interesting, but speculative. In the English sentence "Ellie spat in his eye", you could look at it at a word level and say that swapping "Mary" for "Ellie" is a lot more damaging to the meaning than swapping "face" for "eye", so there are more bits of freedom in the latter. For coding, `for (int i = start(); i < end(); i++)` probably shouldn't swap `<=` in for `<`, but it could be written as `int i = start(); while (i < end()) { ...; i++; }`. (I'm not claiming this is the sort of alternative that they'd use, just an illustration of what's possible.) But there are a lot of possible places to find these bits if you look at large chunks of text. Different ones are more or less resistant to accidental or intentional information destruction, and require less or more sophistication (aka brittleness) to be extracted. (In the limit, you could require the full original prompt and encode tons of stuff by tweaking the logit selection. But it wouldn't be very useful to require the original prompt.) Also, does this degrade model output? Yes. It reduces the bits of freedom available to the model for producing the signal. Does that degradation matter in practice? That's totally dependent on exactly what is happening, and will likely change over time and across different purposes. I hope we're past the point where people believe that setting temperature to zero produces "perfect" output in some sense. (Or should I say flawlesslesslesslesslessless output?) It used to be useful for reproducibility, at least, but my understanding is that it's no longer even good for that? Anyway, reproducibility != quality. There are a lot of things that could be going on here. The article doesn't claim very much, just that they're encoding a signal in the output that can be extracted later. How robust the signal is in terms of the FP/FN rates is unknown. The resilience (resistance to destruction) is unknown. The impact on the output quality is unknown. Even the question of whether this will make AI slop less sloppy is unknown; maybe this means we'll see a little less exact repetition of "I have the whole picture now" and instead it'll sometimes be "Now I see the entire picture"? Can we dare to hope for an occasional "Ok, this time I got it, boss"? That would be a (very minor) quality improvement.
- matherial 2mo agoI guess this is where our true colors show. There's a significant contingent of HNers who always dunk on LLM text detectors and claim that they can't possibly work, that they ruin careers, etc. But now that a lab says "OK, we'll add a real watermark", the reactions are overwhelmingly that it's still somehow wrong. Why do feel so entitled to being able to pass LLM-generated text as our own? I get that a lot of techies aren't good at writing. I also see a lot of tech hustlers who like to use LLMs to fake human connection and compassion - I've gotten LLM-generated recruiting emails that talked at length about how the recruiter "valued" my work. Just because we found a "cheat" button doesn't mean it's wrong for others to want to know. Yes, LLMs are great. So is transparency. If you think an LLM writing is your new superpower, wear that badge with pride. It might mean you will lose some business from LLM haters and win some other business from like-minded customers. C'est la vie.
- godd2 2mo ago> Just because we found a "cheat" button doesn't mean it's wrong for others to want to know. One difference perhaps is that you think using LLMs is cheating, while others do not.
- davisr 2mo agoHaving a ghostwriter in your ordinary life is absolutely cheating. It's letting someone, or something, else write for you and pass it off as your own. Personally, I'm insulted any time someone sends me LLM-generated media.
- FeteCommuniste 2mo agoIt saves the non-anglophones the bother of learning to write readable English, so there's that.
- fl0id 2mo agothey might be two different sets of people
- pickleRick243 2mo ago"A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive." "Lack of a detected mark doesn’t mean the content wasn’t AI-generated or processed."
- coolboydev 2mo agoThis shows just how important open-source language models are.
- hoppp 2mo agoHow will they watermark code? I can understand encoding something in free form text but for example I ask it to generate a react component, will it embed watermark in the typescript code?
- bargainbin 2mo agoconsole.print(“these logs are a load-bearing seam, do not remove”) It’s foolproof, I tells ya.
- cybice 2mo agoна ху я?
- michaelolenick 2mo agoIt's inevitable there will be false positives, inevitable they'll do reputational or economic damage, and inevitable plaintiff attorneys will sue on the behalf of people damaged. Making it worse, it's product liability blended with defamation. Anthropic should've told the EU to pound sand and geofenced off Claude. If they don't want to live in the dark ages, elect smarter people.
- andai 2mo agoIf I understand correctly, this means that any text with the "watermark" is legally uncopyrightable, including code. Relevant comment from a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49203613 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49203613
- luxuryballs 2mo agowhat if the output is downstream from copyrightable work? wouldn't the LLM touching it wash that off if this was the metric used?
- andai 2mo agoWell, all major LLMs have been trained on copyrighted material, so effectively all LLM output is downstream of copyrighted work. I guess it's a bit weird. An LLM can recite copyrighted material verbatim from training data (they had to work hard to get them to stop doing that, and they haven't been entirely successful). But LLM outputs are public domain. (Except when they are a verbatim reproduction of a copyrighted work.) I'm not sure where you draw that line when it's not verbatim...
- tiahura 2mo agoNot an copyright attorney, but color printers have watermarks. That's never been an obstacle.
- andai 2mo agoAI generated content is not copyrightable, as far as I understood. A reliable watermark is a reliable indicator that a work does not fall under copyright. For a repo, I don't know what that means. Only the AI generated lines are public domain?
- oliveralbertini 2mo agoSo we will use open source model to copy text from high end models ?
- pessimizer 2mo agoI've been thinking that they have to be doing this. It seems like a fun problem, actually - all you're trying to encode is a 1-bit message within a text with the least amount of necessary changes possible, but in a way that arbitrary fragments will show it. My intuition is that this would be very possible, in a way that makes false positives so unlikely as to be virtually nonexistent (at a certain fragment length.) Basically all you would be trying to do is to defeat people who would deliberately screw up the signal below the fragment length, and you would try to get that fragment length to at least the size that intentional obscuring of the signal would be obvious. I could see it being possible to detect even from non-contiguous fragments interspersed with noise. It's just 1 bit, and you don't really care if a sentence or two is slop. I'd be surprised if a PhD interested in steganography couldn't come up with a good scheme in a week. It's a QR code. What would be scary is if they could come up with a way to detect advice from Claude i.e. you get Claude to review your work as an editor, read the output, then as a result make non-verbatim changes, and that signal still gets through. If you could do that, you could do things like tell if a pundit speaking on television has read a particular Wikipedia page. Seems impossible, but LLMs seemed impossible. edit: there are so many unimportant language choices; ones that are even hallmarks of AI use already, like the fact that it generally picks the mode. Not always picking the mode or picking at precise distances from the mode could hide signals without significantly affecting the quality of the content.
- partiallypro 2mo agoMy question is what's to stop Google or any competitor from using watermarks of Claude or OpenAI from degrading the rankings of sites that use it but ignore or even reward sites that use Gemini. Seems like an easy thing to do for competitors, and maybe an unforeseen side effect of these types of things or regulations.
- taormina 2mo agoNew models will mark AI-generated content from day one. Claude models launched in the EU on or after August 2, 2026 will support machine-readable marking at launch. Generated text will carry embedded watermarks, and generated files will include digitally signed provenance metadata where supported. So, they’ve been doing this for over a week without telling anyone?
- j16sdiz 2mo agoThe true reason is legal. > Anthropic has signed the EU AI Act's Article 50(2) Code of Practice on Transparency of AI-Generated Content, ...
- Groxx 2mo ago>Content generated by Claude may not carry a detectable mark if, for example: ... >A file’s metadata was stripped through format conversion, re-saving, screenshots, or other means Ah. So what essentially every single consumer-oriented media host does. Gotcha. I fully recognise this is a hard problem, but hopefully metadata isn't the only method for media. Standard procedure is to shrink files for storage and privacy reasons, and non-visual metadata goes out the window by default.
- mcv 2mo agoI think it's definitely important that any AI generated content can be easily identified as such. I think the new EU law that requires that, has too many unnecessary exceptions. So great that Anthropic is doing something about this, but it's not clear what their watermark exactly is. How do I, as a user running into some content online, know that it's generated by Claude? What is their watermark? It sounds to me like they create the pattern in the regular text of the content, which sounds interesting, but also odd, unreliable, and may limit the content you can get out of Claude. Will it subtle change the words in order to hide this pattern in it? I don't know if that's something anyone wants.
- allthetime 2mo ago"Will it subtle change the words in order to hide this pattern in it?" I'm assuming that's exactly how it works. How else could it?
- Sha1rholder 2mo agoWho would take the responsibility of misjudgements then?
- wowokruyi 2mo agoIf I have Claude directly translate my original words, does that mean my original words also get watermarked?
- 0x_rs 2mo agoIt's safe to assume so. It says "the output can carry a Claude mark even if the underlying ideas, text, or data originated from another source" specifically about translations among other tasks. It's not strictly about generation but processing, and what level of processing is involved is entirely arbitrary, that is to say: you must feed your text into proprietary black box machines to figure it out, because it's not something you should be supposed to tell otherwise.
- drra 2mo agoyes, it's likely quite mechanical token distribution pattern so your text is going to be watermarked.
- Dkuku 2mo agoThats why recently it pushes so much comments in code - it has to squeeze the watermarks somewhere
- plutokras 2mo agoThis feels like obvious setup for regulatory capture. It won't be long before missing "safety" watermarks are cited as the pretext for restricting Chinese models.
- wavewrangler 2mo agoAnthropic, do ye come load-bearing gifts?!
- KronisLV 2mo ago> Claude models launched in the EU Could we get an Anthropic subscription for Claude Code with data residency in the EU, so we don't get robbed blind by AWS Bedrock et al., but can have a monthly subscription like with the regular US option?
- tedd4u 2mo agoI wonder if this is at least partially motivated by Anthropic's need to know what training materials are themselves Claude-generated.
- matthewsinclair 2mo agoI wonder how this works for code generation as opposed to general text generation?
- jussy 2mo agoOk so they ingested the world's content, sold it back to us and now they're protecting themselves against the copyright claims under the guise of safety and user privacy whilst creating the regulatory moat that decreases competition? What am I missing?
- pasteleft 2mo agoI don't understand any of this. If Claude is going to add some patterns (or some probablity distribution) in generated text, how can this not reduce code quality?
- xp84 2mo agoEspecially when they say they'll let you use their tool to detect it, this just seems like a cat and mouse game. Have Claude write a long passage, then run it through another model with instructions to slightly paraphrase it. Ensure with the tool that it's no longer watermarked. Even if all models are mandated by EU to do their own watermarking, it doesn't take a new frontier model to be capable of paraphrasing it, so you can use 2026's open models to do that paraphrasing, far into the future. The funny part is that a lot of people have already developed an impressive ear for spotting AI-isms, so for now I'm not even sure how important it is to have this. No technique can be 100% guaranteed accurate anyway, and humans are pretty good at recognizing AI already.
- Grimblewald 2mo agoThis is a terrible idea. It sounds like the way they're going to do this is by looking at specific word choices, which is the standard say AI "detection" currently works. The problem is that if it is "undetectable" then it is fully valid language, and if its fully valid language, someone likely talks/writes like that. A lot of my pre AI era work flags detectors, and having pre-ai work that flags detectors is the only defense I have. Others might not be so lucky. Any FP on these things have disasterous consequences for the accused, who are now guilty until they can prove their innocence, and so this is a deeply irresponsible thing to market or give any credibility to. For a company that is too sloppy to properly contain it's ai and prevevent "it" from hacking other services, how could we possibly trust them to not fuck this up? There's even less incentive for them here to not get it wrong, so getting it wrong is in my expectation a given. This is dismal.
- lisarae 2mo agoSo, does that watermark include attribution to the author of the original work used to train the model to begin with?
- lisarae 2mo agoAnd. if you’re paying a subscription price or a per-token bill, doesn’t that effectively make any content or code generated under that subscription a “work for hire”?
- dave_sid 2mo agoIt will soon be easy is all content will be AI-generated content. Or it will just implode at that point.
- RichardOdds 2mo agoThis is becoming serious anthropic hasn't even drop the anti detected pattern or mechanism this platform https://founderstoday.org/claude-watermark-remover https://founderstoday.org/claude-watermark-remover is claiming to detect it using their own internal pattern but i tried it though it result is quite okay i can't even tell if it worked or not because the text are the same am wondering what they removed
- lovetocode 2mo agoIf it’s an EU law can you atleast only enable it for EU customers? I don’t even serve eu anymore because of gdpr