4 ms·
You can't make a blanket statement like this without knowing how the watermark is implemented.
by platinumrad 2mo ago
You can't make a blanket statement like this without knowing how the watermark is implemented.
- dns_snek 2mo agoWhy not? I'm assuming that the watermark detector won't have plausible false positives on human-written text otherwise it won't have much merit to begin with. If a detector flags something in your text and you've properly attributed that text to another author then what is there to worry about?
- platinumrad 2mo agoIf you take it as given that the watermark detector won't have "plausible false positives" then, sure, your argument becomes trivial. I'm not taking that as given.
- dns_snek 2mo agoI'm not taking anything as given. If it suffers from false positives then you have nothing to worry about because the signal won't have any merit -- just like existing AI detectors today. If it doesn't suffer from false positives then you have nothing to worry about because your text won't be detected.
- platinumrad 2mo agoThese things aren't binary. There is a large middle ground, which is where Pangram sits today. It's good enough to be useful, but I absolutely would not be willing to fail a student on the basis of a Pangram positive. If you are implying that this Claude watermark may be good enough to enter the "evidence to fail a student" category then we have a major disagreement.