3 ms·

Doesn’t this mean Anthropic can accuse anyone of using their AI to write for them?

by andy_ppp 2mo ago

mapt 2mo ago
Your favorite anti-AI political candidate turns out to have not written their thesis, with a 73% confidence level.
MagicMoonlight 2mo ago
[dead]
mbreese 2mo ago
Is watermarking really watermarking if it can’t be independently verified? I mean, all of these text content watermarking schemes require the company to assess if the text was AI generated or not. They aren’t going to tell us where the toss-up tokens are or what is in the red vs green pools of words.
marianobayu 2mo ago
[dead]
SatishPophale 2mo ago
yes, why would someone will use this tool for writing then?
jjk166 2mo ago
Seems like exactly the sort of problem the threat of defamation lawsuits are meant to solve.
- pjc50 2mo ago
  Evidence is a massive problem here. As well as the extremely high threshold for US defamation; political candidates routinely tell the most absurd lies about each other.
  - jjk166 2mo ago
    The high threshold is only for public figures, which must show actual malice. For everyone else (e.g. your typical student falsely accused of plagiarism), they only need to show the statement was false, published, targeted the plaintiff, and caused damage - it's still defamation even if they were simply negligent in checking the facts. The company might be able to cover themselves if they are very clear they are just giving a statistical probability and not saying their model was definitely used, but if they imply they have hidden information that points to their conclusion (which is kind of the whole point of their algorithm) then that's not a valid defense. I can't say they would lose in practice, but in theory they ought to lose.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    In places like Germany it's a crime to say something that makes a politician look bad, even if it's true.
    - sReinwald 2mo ago
      That is simply incorrect. In Germany, truth is a complete defense as far as libel and defamation cases are concerned.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        But not insult, and even for defamation, you will be prosecuted and have to prove the statement is true, even if the politician and everyone else knows it's true.

Doesn’t this mean Anthropic can accuse anyone of using their AI to write for them?

mapt 2mo ago

Your favorite anti-AI political candidate turns out to have not written their thesis, with a 73% confidence level.

MagicMoonlight 2mo ago

[dead]

mbreese 2mo ago

Is watermarking really watermarking if it can’t be independently verified? I mean, all of these text content watermarking schemes require the company to assess if the text was AI generated or not. They aren’t going to tell us where the toss-up tokens are or what is in the red vs green pools of words.

marianobayu 2mo ago

[dead]

SatishPophale 2mo ago

yes, why would someone will use this tool for writing then?

jjk166 2mo ago

Seems like exactly the sort of problem the threat of defamation lawsuits are meant to solve.

pjc50 2mo ago
Evidence is a massive problem here. As well as the extremely high threshold for US defamation; political candidates routinely tell the most absurd lies about each other.
- jjk166 2mo ago
  The high threshold is only for public figures, which must show actual malice. For everyone else (e.g. your typical student falsely accused of plagiarism), they only need to show the statement was false, published, targeted the plaintiff, and caused damage - it's still defamation even if they were simply negligent in checking the facts. The company might be able to cover themselves if they are very clear they are just giving a statistical probability and not saying their model was definitely used, but if they imply they have hidden information that points to their conclusion (which is kind of the whole point of their algorithm) then that's not a valid defense. I can't say they would lose in practice, but in theory they ought to lose.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  In places like Germany it's a crime to say something that makes a politician look bad, even if it's true.
  - sReinwald 2mo ago
    That is simply incorrect. In Germany, truth is a complete defense as far as libel and defamation cases are concerned.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      But not insult, and even for defamation, you will be prosecuted and have to prove the statement is true, even if the politician and everyone else knows it's true.