3 ms·
If 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 giv
by platinumrad 2mo ago
If 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.