4 ms·
The question is whether LLM providers are going to do this. Anthropic currently says they don’t, but it’s impossible to verify: > Watermarking carries no ident
by nojs 3mo ago
The question is whether LLM providers are going to do this. Anthropic currently says they don’t, but it’s impossible to verify:
> Watermarking carries no identifying information and can’t be traced to a specific person, organization, or chat;
https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark
- trollbridge 3mo agoProbably just means they haven't (yet) figured out how to do the watermarking carrying enough bits of data to encode a GUID.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3mo agoIt could also mean they are lying. It could be they are being forced to downplay how good the watermarking is because gov agencies want that tool available to them without people knowing about it. We'll have to wait for the next Snowden to find out.
- trollbridge 3mo agoIn other words, plausible deniability. “We aren’t watermarking your text.” (Today, and we’ll start tomorrow.)
- martin_a 3mo agoI still don't see how this is supposed to work for text content that I copy and paste somewhere else. And with models getting better and better to "human language", wouldn't the false positives also rise as "real text" is flagged to be AI generated?
- Eddy_Viscosity2 3mo agoI don't know either, and maybe it doesn't or can't work. But also maybe it does and can. I do not have any where near the expertise to know which is the case.
- mg794613 3mo agoAt least, according to the very trustworthy Claude.
- ozereray1 3mo ago[flagged]