Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Claude marks AI-generated content

support.claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 446 posts

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#351

Post by Banditoz »

akersten wrote: post #206
mikro2nd wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "code that Claude makes..."? Oh, how I laughed. That was never your code, my friend.

Please don't let the arbitrary selection of phrase distract you from the substance of my argument: a product that I pay for is at best no better due to this change, and highly probably worse. Why am I paying for a tool that is beholden to clandestinely satisfy some far away master?

I don't know, why are you? Who's to say Anthropic wasn't already modifying output in some way for optimization or some other reason? These models are incredibly opaque.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#352

Post by SubiculumCode »

LEDThereBeLight wrote: post #71
hparadiz wrote: post #53

I know you're gonna read this so I'll be blunt. This is bad for your brand.

Reactionary emotional advice does no good, it just makes people want to hold their positions more defensively. If you care enough to say something, care enough to say it with reasons that might shift someone’s perspective.

Go ahead and follow your own advice. You made a claim. Now back it up.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#354

Post by jobigoud »

mjuarez wrote: post #288

Like others have said, it's not reasonable to ask this. I propose we defeat this with the obvious: Simply, figure out what are some of the markers Claude and others will use for these tools, and sprinkle them randomly on everything we type or produce, all the time, 100%. If users flood the tools, and everything returns as AI-generated, then the tools become useless.

The markers aren't words that you can sprinkle in your prose, they are a statistical bias in the selection of the words.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#355

Post by pickleRick243 »

matherial wrote: post #299

I guess this is where our true colors show. There's a significant contingent of HNers who always dunk on LLM text detectors and claim that they can't possibly work, that they ruin careers, etc. But now that a lab says "OK, we'll add a real watermark", the reactions are overwhelmingly that it's still somehow wrong. Why do feel so entitled to being able to pass LLM-generated text as our own? I get that a lot of techies…

"A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive."

"Lack of a detected mark doesn’t mean the content wasn’t AI-generated or processed."

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#356

Post by Groxx »

>Content generated by Claude may not carry a detectable mark if, for example: ...

>A file’s metadata was stripped through format conversion, re-saving, screenshots, or other means

Ah. So what essentially every single consumer-oriented media host does. Gotcha.

I fully recognise this is a hard problem, but hopefully metadata isn't the only method for media. Standard procedure is to shrink files for storage and privacy reasons, and non-visual metadata goes out the window by default.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#357

Post by mcv »

I think it's definitely important that any AI generated content can be easily identified as such. I think the new EU law that requires that, has too many unnecessary exceptions.

So great that Anthropic is doing something about this, but it's not clear what their watermark exactly is. How do I, as a user running into some content online, know that it's generated by Claude? What is their watermark?

It sounds to me like they create the pattern in the regular text of the content, which sounds interesting, but also odd, unreliable, and may limit the content you can get out of Claude. Will it subtle change the words in order to hide this pattern in it? I don't know if that's something anyone wants.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#359

Post by Laurel1234 »

h0mie wrote: post #349
Laurel1234 wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you feel the need to deceive readers on whether your content is AI generated?

Why is it deception if you never claimed it was unassisted? The assumption now is that most text produced is already assisted by an AI to some extent.

If you have no problem with your AI content being labeled as AI content then a watermark that does exactly that is totally fine with you, no?

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#360

Post by allthetime »

mcv wrote: post #357

I think it's definitely important that any AI generated content can be easily identified as such. I think the new EU law that requires that, has too many unnecessary exceptions. So great that Anthropic is doing something about this, but it's not clear what their watermark exactly is. How do I, as a user running into some content online, know that it's generated by Claude? What is their watermark? It sounds to me like…

"Will it subtle change the words in order to hide this pattern in it?"

I'm assuming that's exactly how it works. How else could it?

Post reply on HN