201–210 of 446 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the Chinese want to sell to EU customers, they probably have to do the same.
I’ve seen Chinese open weights models say “can’t use this if you’re in Europe” in their licenses, so I doubt they would invest too much into complying
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most likely this method https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10226 (EDIT: and Google's SynthID paper which builds on it https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08025-4 )
If different model providers use different green logits, does that mean they can only tell if the text came from their own model?
All big LLMs already visibly watermark all their text with easy to detect annoying phrases and turns of speech that everyone is already sick of hearing. Why do AI companies keep making their products worse to appease anti-AI, it’s not like they’ll suddenly start supporting it if you do so. If you’re worried about European customers, just relax your firewalls to let more VPNs through, if the productivity boost is high…
Individuals maybe, companies won't and that's where most of money is at.
Seems to me like this creates a huge incentive to game the watermark. Also, how does it prevent having AI generate the text, then the user copy-paste it into a clean document?
The watermark is in the text. If you copy the text you're copying the watermark which is part of the text. Computerphile on YT has a video explaining how models can fingerprint the text they produce. Essentially they modify the probabilities of word choice slightly in a predictable way.
This would imply that a positive watermark signal is likely (but not guaranteed) to be AI generated. Also implies that a negative watermark signal is not necessarily void of AI generated text. This would create a problem if people start to trust the watermark as a heuristic, as the ability to critically evaluate the text is replaced by the search for a watermark.
Seems to me all of this is really trying to solve for "is this text bullshit" or not, which would require a different solution.
So my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.
Your "code that Claude makes..."? Oh, how I laughed. That was never your code, my friend.
> 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…
So my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.
They aren't using greedy decoding, there's enough randomness in sampling to swap some with independent signal.
Now the goal is either "identify the meaningless interesting bits and swap them out with 0% loss in the direction of the original goal," or "perturb some small selection of the output towards my secondary secret goal of watermarking the text."
It would be quite impressive if they managed to identify with 100% accuracy the tokens that "don't matter" and are free to swap with whatever signalling tokens encode the AI scarlet letter, but most likely they are not 100% accurate, and that means the output is worse off than without the watermarking logic.
All big LLMs already visibly watermark all their text with easy to detect annoying phrases and turns of speech that everyone is already sick of hearing. Why do AI companies keep making their products worse to appease anti-AI, it’s not like they’ll suddenly start supporting it if you do so. If you’re worried about European customers, just relax your firewalls to let more VPNs through, if the productivity boost is high…
> if the productivity boost is high they will use it anyway if their rules keep crippling their own models Individuals maybe, companies won't and that's where most of money is at.
So my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.
Your "code that Claude makes..."? Oh, how I laughed. That was never your code, my friend.