> "Claude models launched on or after August 2, 2026 support marking at launch."
No Anthropic model has been launched in August.
How Claude marks AI-generated content
121–130 of 446 posts
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Panagram is a scam.
(This is the part where you provide extensive extraordinary evidence to your claim)
Pangram is subjectively very useful and I personally subscribe, but the burden of proof is on them. The product is very much "trust me bro" and I fear that if they ever try to improve recall both their precision and reputation will tank.
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#123Seems like an awful idea. I hope that that "watermark" will soon be discovered, reverse-engineered, and that tools to remove it will appear.
I hope all models adopt it.
Thankfully, there are a variety of Chinese models that never will. I think we all know that in a few years, they will also be the only relevant offerings on the market, due to not being bogged down with over-zealous ""safety"" footguns.
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#124Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#125People with dyslexia and dystrophia, commonly use LLMs to proofread content. Even Anthropic admits this is a limitation.
People with executive dysfunction too. LLMs bring execution costs down to near zero and are therefore assistive technology.
"This is my emotional support gun. It makes me feel safe despite my CPTSD and is therefore assistive technology."
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#126Earlier 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.
Are you worried about being accused of using LLMs to generate your work? As long as you don't plagiarize you have nothing to worry about.
You can't make a blanket statement like this without knowing how the watermark is implemented.
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#127I notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over t…
Maybe it has no false positive rate
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#128I notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over t…
Maybe it has no false positive rate
That's essentially impossible, unless you mean they didn't measure a false positive rate.
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#129> 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…
>I'd like to know a lot more about how that works. 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 wi…
Most probable usually means for a specific prompt. How can this operate without the the original prompt?
Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
(This is the part where you provide extensive extraordinary evidence to your claim)
Pangram is subjectively very useful and I personally subscribe, but the burden of proof is on them. The product is very much "trust me bro" and I fear that if they ever try to improve recall both their precision and reputation will tank.
Then what is the best way to know that something is AI generated slop then?