71–80 of 446 posts
I know you're gonna read this so I'll be blunt. This is bad for your brand.
EU regulation does it again!
I have had a hunch for a while now that (in addition to these tools), Anthropic has actually leaned in to Claude's distinctive manner of writing since it makes the text more obviously AI generated and thus less susceptible to misuse. That's not necessarily the same thing as a markov-style fingerprint but it could be a correlated factor.
I've heard that this kind of watermarking process works by biassing the statistical sampling towards a partition of the set of possible next tokens (red set and green set), at each position. It might only be a slight nudge each time, but over a sequence of tokens, the likelihood of repeating the bias by chance is increasingly improbable. The bias is different for each position and follows a defined RNG, seeded someho…
I don’t like the idea of hacking a response to contain a watermark. I also don’t like the idea of false positives detections coming directly from Anthropic. If people read more AI generated content, people will probably start writing more in that style
I have no idea why you were down voted for this. Language is alive and people adopt it from sources they hear a lot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens if someone handwrites a Claude output, then someone uses that handwritten text as a reference. Now you've got a watermarked idea which may have no direct linkage to the usage of Claude.
How is that different from referencing digital text that someone copied and pasted from Claude?
Similarly, if you quote someone word-for-word, you wouldn't anticipate their words to be flagged as Claude content, but if someone memorized Claude output word-for-word. That would still be classified as a Claude output.
Going forward you could categorize the influence of Claude on a population based off a percentage match between their spoken words with the LLM prose.
So this won't be happening in the US, but in the EU: " When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. Because the watermark is part of the text, it will travel with the text when it’s copied and pasted elsewhere, and may persist through some editing. Wat…
Article specifically says "worldwide"
They should just replace the spaces by one of Unicode special space characters. Can it be circumvented? Of course. Will most people go through the trouble to circumvent it? No.
If it's that simple and obvious, you'll have 10 "Remove Claude Watermark" web-apps by the end of Day 1. Most of them coded by Claude. Hell, it'll probably happen no matter how sophisticated their watermark is. There's no watermark in text that can't be detected and removed, and no text that can't be converted to generic keyboard ASCII.
> When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response. I'd like to know a lot more about how that works. A lot of my interactions with Claude return pretty precise text. If I ask it to edit a project and refactor a specific function in several places I know ex…
My guess is that it works like Gemini's SynthID: by altering the logprobs of the next token.
Like, for every 10th token, instead of outputting the most probable, it outputs the 17th most probable, or something. (Obviously it's way more complicated but I think conceptually this is how it works.) No human will notice this, but a classifier trained on Claude's output will.
So it's not like the watermark is the words "le epic bacon" and Claude will output "le epic bacon" in everything. That would be extremely annoying (and easy to defeat).