Live data from Hacker News

OpenAI won't watermark ChatGPT text because its users could get caught

theverge.com

81–84 of 84 posts

Re: OpenAI won't watermark ChatGPT text because its users could get caught

#83
post #42
post #13

What we're seeing is a new profitable industry, with a tendency towards natural monopoly, refusing to act in the public good because its incentives conflict with it. At stake is the entire corpus of 21st century media, at risk of being drowned out in a tsunami of statistically unidentifiable spam, which has already begun and will only get worse, until nobody will even acknowledge the web post 2022 as worth reading or…

You are DEEPLY WRONG on all issues you mentioned. Open weight models do not require great investment. In fact I can run them on my 400 EUR computer. Also why you want to regulate text output from machines in the name of "public good"? That's insanity.

The comment was referring to models close to the recent releases from Meta and Mistral, reaching up to 405B with performance competitive with large commercial vendors. These models absolutely can't be trained without significant investment, and their inference without a cloud provider isn't cheap either. As I had mentioned, nothing short of not having released the weights could have stopped the abuse, but still, a fraction of it could be deterred, hopefully adding up to a few billion less spam pages for search engines to serve back to you.

As for the rationality of watermarking itself, firstly I'd like to reiterate, no spam wave of this magnitude and undetectability has ever happened in the history of the web. A word processor cannot write a petabyte of propaganda on its own. A Markov chain can't generate anything convincing enough to fool a human. Transformer-based LLMs are the first of their kind and should be treated as such. There is no quick analogy or a rule of thumb to point to.

If statistical watermarking is proven to have sufficient recall and error, there'll be nothing to lose in implementing it. A demand already exists for detecting AI slop; half-working BERT classifiers and prejudiced human sniff tests already provide for it, with little incentive to reduce false positives. With watermarks, there'll be a less painful, more certain way to catch the worst offenders. Do you really think the same operations that produce papers with titles like "Sorry, as an AI model..." or papers with pieces of ChatGPT UI text will care to roundtrip translate or rewrite entire paragraphs?

We already had this exact dilemma back when email spammers tried Bayesian poisoning [0]. Turns out, it actually creates an identifiable pattern, if not for the system, then for the user on the other side. People will train themselves to look for oddly phrased sentences or the outright nonsense roundtripping produces, abrupt shifts in writing style, and other heuristics, and once the large enough corpus is there, we can talk about training a new classifier, this time on a much more stable pattern with less type-I errors.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_poisoning

Post reply on HN