3 ms·

So 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

So 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 ago
They aren't using greedy decoding, there's enough randomness in sampling to swap some with independent signal.
- akersten 2mo ago
  Purely 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 ago
    What 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
[dead]
mikro2nd 2mo ago
Your "code that Claude makes..."? Oh, how I laughed. That was never your code, my friend.
- HatchedLake721 2mo ago
  Who's is it?
  - mikro2nd 2mo ago
    That's just the point: nobody knows! It might be my code. It might be your code. Nobody knows who they stole it from.
- akersten 2mo ago
  Please don't let the arbitrary selection of phrase distract you from the substance of my argument: a product that I pay for is at best no better due to this change, and highly probably worse. Why am I paying for a tool that is beholden to clandestinely satisfy some far away master?
  - mikro2nd 2mo ago
    Good question! Why are you paying for some tool that has always been beholden to some faraway master's opaque agenda?
    - someguynamedq 2mo ago
      We live in a world where outcomes are often more important than process
  - fwlr 2mo ago
    Because the tool is made by a corporation that is subject to regulation by a government, and that government has decided it’s in the best interests of society that the tool be limited in this way.
  - lelanthran 2mo ago
OrangeMusic 2mo ago
The EU ruined your perfect slop

So 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 ago

They aren't using greedy decoding, there's enough randomness in sampling to swap some with independent signal.

akersten 2mo ago
Purely 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 ago
  What 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

[dead]

mikro2nd 2mo ago

Your "code that Claude makes..."? Oh, how I laughed. That was never your code, my friend.

HatchedLake721 2mo ago
Who's is it?
- mikro2nd 2mo ago
  That's just the point: nobody knows! It might be my code. It might be your code. Nobody knows who they stole it from.
akersten 2mo ago
Please don't let the arbitrary selection of phrase distract you from the substance of my argument: a product that I pay for is at best no better due to this change, and highly probably worse. Why am I paying for a tool that is beholden to clandestinely satisfy some far away master?
- mikro2nd 2mo ago
  Good question! Why are you paying for some tool that has always been beholden to some faraway master's opaque agenda?
  - someguynamedq 2mo ago
    We live in a world where outcomes are often more important than process
- fwlr 2mo ago
  Because the tool is made by a corporation that is subject to regulation by a government, and that government has decided it’s in the best interests of society that the tool be limited in this way.
- lelanthran 2mo ago

OrangeMusic 2mo ago

The EU ruined your perfect slop