4 ms·
What an absurd take on a very reasonable concern. As much as I hate “obviously AI” writing, I don’t understand why we have to handicap the tech and prevent it f
by shubhamjain 2mo ago
What an absurd take on a very reasonable concern. As much as I hate “obviously AI” writing, I don’t understand why we have to handicap the tech and prevent it from improving. This manipulation of word choices virtually guarantees AI will always sound like a robot.
- moooo99 2mo agoWith all things going on among AI bros and the AI industry as a whole, are you really that surprised there is a widespread aversion against the tech?
- voidUpdate 2mo agoHave you compared pre- and post-watermarked text to make that assertion? And I'm not sure how writing your own text if you care deeply about the word choice is handicapping the technology?
- croon 2mo agoI don't think there's been a single version of the major LLM providers that haven't handicapped the tech since the beginning by changing temperature/top-P/frequency penalty/etc. All of those stray from "highest probability" token selection. What's funny is it was done specifically to make it sound less like a robot/deterministic.
- ruszki 2mo agoReasonable? A concern which is based on no real data?
- guenthert 2mo ago> This manipulation of word choices virtually guarantees AI will always sound like a robot. You make it sound as if that were a bad thing.
- mrguyorama 2mo agoThe entire watermarking scheme is based on replacing a random number generator with a seeded random number generator. This cannot change the "voice" of the LLM. It was already letting a random number generator choose which adjectives to use. Now that random number generator encodes a tiny signal. But fundamentally the way it writes has not changed. It's not making it choose different words. It's a minor change to how it chooses between multiple nearly identical words, where in the current case it literally flips a coin.