2 ms·

You’re probably better off organizing a campaign to pressure Congress to prohibit American corporations imposing foreign laws on Americans, which is what this t

You’re probably better off organizing a campaign to pressure Congress to prohibit American corporations imposing foreign laws on Americans, which is what this text watermarking is, regardless of how you feel about it. I think it’s a precedent we really don’t want to go down if you believe in democracy and self-determination. It also clearly establishes or the very least moves in the direction that you don’t actually own or control the output of AI in any manner whatsoever, you’re just paying for it since Anthropic in this case can simply essentially brand/tag all your output that is based on not directly your own words, but a higher level process or methods that you use, including your instructions and how you structure your information and what your overall objective and goal is. Anthropic is branding it on the behest of the EU lew, which already is an entity that is diametrically opposed to democracy and self-determination based on its structure even if you ignore the fact that it violates the most fundamental concepts of self-determination in its direct contradiction of the UN Charter and implicitly the Universal Declaration of Human rights. What people done seem to be catching onto is that the EU is becoming the world dictatorship because the USA has simply had too many onerous people and that stupid constitution and its amendments that keep roadblocks world domination for the ruling class vampire.

sroussey 25d ago
I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient.
- ctoth 25d ago
  > I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient. So, you think it's good to disconnect words from their actual meanings (lie) to low-information people! I doubt this will do much to congress, but it certainly teaches us something about the sort of mind who would suggest it.
  - sroussey 25d ago
    It is simply a change in words invisible to anyone who does not have the detection API.
demibabs 25d ago
I do not understand why people remain so up in arms. AI generated text being watermarked is universally good. What benefit is there to people believing that LLM text was actually human written?
- DaSHacka 25d ago
  Because the incentive has been changed from the true best output always, to a mix of "close to the best but not always" output. For the (majority) of us using Claude models for computing as a tool, obviously we're not going to be thrilled that our new tool will perform worse going forward.
  - hfhdjfjfjf 25d ago
    > true best output always literally never how it has worked
  - demibabs 25d ago
    Do you understand that LLMs are probabilistic? Ask a model the same question twice and you will get different results. So, how were you ever getting “the best result, always”?
  - jpleyden98 25d ago
    Put the watermarked version head to head with the non-watermarked version. If you can't tell which one is better then how can you make any assumption about performance? For all you know performance is the same. So many people complaining about something they quite literally have zero evidence for.
    - sroussey 23d ago
      标
- akersten 25d ago
  > generated text being watermarked is universally good. If it worked perfectly, maybe you could make this argument in a vacuum. It does not work perfectly. (It cannot. It is by definition a heuristic). That means there will be false positives. There is a chance those false positives ruin someone's career. See [0] for just how easy it is to push SotA "AI text detectors" in one direction or another. Now, with watermarks, instead of everyone to some extent understanding that AI text detectors are wishy washy woo, they are now Anthropic certified to detect an official AI watermark. With that kind of false confidence in hand, the people who trust the "computer says you plagiarized" machine are never going to believe you when you say "it can make mistakes," they're just going to fire you/take away your scholarship/cancel your grant/... This is all beside the fact that we should demand our tools work for us and not for some shadowy master. "Universally good," absolutely not. [0]: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-is-broken-but https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-i...

sroussey 25d ago

I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient.

ctoth 25d ago
> I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient. So, you think it's good to disconnect words from their actual meanings (lie) to low-information people! I doubt this will do much to congress, but it certainly teaches us something about the sort of mind who would suggest it.
- sroussey 25d ago
  It is simply a change in words invisible to anyone who does not have the detection API.

demibabs 25d ago

I do not understand why people remain so up in arms. AI generated text being watermarked is universally good. What benefit is there to people believing that LLM text was actually human written?

DaSHacka 25d ago
Because the incentive has been changed from the true best output always, to a mix of "close to the best but not always" output. For the (majority) of us using Claude models for computing as a tool, obviously we're not going to be thrilled that our new tool will perform worse going forward.
- hfhdjfjfjf 25d ago
  > true best output always literally never how it has worked
- demibabs 25d ago
  Do you understand that LLMs are probabilistic? Ask a model the same question twice and you will get different results. So, how were you ever getting “the best result, always”?
- jpleyden98 25d ago
  Put the watermarked version head to head with the non-watermarked version. If you can't tell which one is better then how can you make any assumption about performance? For all you know performance is the same. So many people complaining about something they quite literally have zero evidence for.
  - sroussey 23d ago
    标
akersten 25d ago
> generated text being watermarked is universally good. If it worked perfectly, maybe you could make this argument in a vacuum. It does not work perfectly. (It cannot. It is by definition a heuristic). That means there will be false positives. There is a chance those false positives ruin someone's career. See [0] for just how easy it is to push SotA "AI text detectors" in one direction or another. Now, with watermarks, instead of everyone to some extent understanding that AI text detectors are wishy washy woo, they are now Anthropic certified to detect an official AI watermark. With that kind of false confidence in hand, the people who trust the "computer says you plagiarized" machine are never going to believe you when you say "it can make mistakes," they're just going to fire you/take away your scholarship/cancel your grant/... This is all beside the fact that we should demand our tools work for us and not for some shadowy master. "Universally good," absolutely not. [0]: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-is-broken-but https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/i-wouldnt-say-pangram-i...