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

401–410 of 446 posts

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#401

Post by normalaccess »

dragonwriter wrote: post #376
dbqpdb wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need a chain of custody system for content, but that would require browsers, software, websites, operating systems, phones, camera manufacturers, etc to all get on board. But each intermediary or source (optionally) cryptographicaly signs a piece of content that it either generates, edits, or passes along, and the end result at a destination, is that content is either 'trusted' if its cryptographic chain i…

> I think we need a chain of custody system for content, but that would require browsers, software, websites, operating systems, phones, camera manufacturers, etc to all get on board. It would also require the individual humans you are trying to control to get on board otherwise the analog hole breaks the chain, absent mindboggling levels of physical surveillance on top of the the total monitoring of all electronic d…

I think that's the end goal.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#402

Post by sixothree »

silversmith wrote: post #225
user43928 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am wondering how that applies to newly generated code. Odd variable naming? Stylistic choices that are watermarked? Or as someone else noted further down in the comments, it could be more subtle: Between the first and second most likely choice, in certain positions it will consistently choose in a certain way.

Personal observation: Opus 5, over the last week, has started outputting A LOT more comments. Despite my global instructions being full of variations on "don't use comments unless absolutely necessary". I might be imagining things of course. But comments would be great fit for this use case.

Comments seem most plausible, especially since I absolutely expect it to match my code style, existing architecture, and have the code go through CSharpier and dotnet format after the fact.

edit: as an aside - I actually use extensions to collapse comments and change the color to be less intrusive.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#403

Post by matheusmoreira »

Dilettante_ wrote: post #125
matheusmoreira wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Sorry, but it essentially cured my ADHD. In my experience, AI is more effective than lisdexamfetamine at allowing me to turn my ideas into reality.

AI stigmatization is ableism.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#404

Post by jussy »

Ok so they ingested the world's content, sold it back to us and now they're protecting themselves against the copyright claims under the guise of safety and user privacy whilst creating the regulatory moat that decreases competition?

What am I missing?

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#405

Post by cma »

teravor wrote: post #374
wrsh07 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scott Aaronson talks about his project at OpenAI to do this^ You can carefully select which pseudorandom number generator (prng) you use to be able to id text of a certain length. I expect there is some performance characteristic you have to manage since you're doing this on every inference, but once you do that it doesn't change the output in any meaningful way (the prng is still a statistically valid prng, it just…

this would be a very heavy watermark application. there are many simpler methods, for example you can have a tiny windowed transformer operating on the output text and all you do is alter certain words (that don't change meanings) to maximize its surprise. the tiny language model will have a special training regime to build up a somewhat unique view of the language. we are talking about a 0.5 bit watermark here (exis…

When you tell the AI: copy this function to here, a small window rewriter would mean it just corrupts and changes it instead of moving it. And even it's own tool use would have some small window dumb model changing the tool calls based on what it thinks are synonyms? The Aaronson approach is much better than this, it's essentially like changing out the random seed for the sampling parts that were already random. For an operation like recall of previous text, the tight logits that result still keep it doing that close to deterministically. For something it creates itself, with more spread out probability mass, it gets watermarked.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#408

Post by xp84 »

mchusma wrote: post #230

Many good comments here. It’s somewhat common for me to voice record say a blog post of product updates, more like a ramble. Then have Claude clean it up. Then argue back and forth about certain things until it’s good, then make a final pass sometimes to change a few key words. This is incredibly different than pure ai text. Presumably it will show as ai generated here, even though I would argue it is not really. So…

IDK. At my job it seems like it's expected you'll use it in that way.

In academia they've got their own concerns of 'purity,' (not least of which is justifying their continued existence which is in my opinion hard to do) and they are the ones who are going to want most strongly to punish anyone who uses AI.

And perhaps "journalists," who will want to trumpet the latest government's press release being [what they'll portray as] mostly AI-generated, as a headline-grabbing "gotcha." Ironically, that may even be a story that'll be written by a fully-autonomous journalist "agent" in a newsroom that's been pruned of all human journalists!

But in business it seems to me that we're all agreeing that it's a "good" use of AI to write in that way.

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#409

Post by ricericerice »

SkyBelow wrote: post #267
mysterydip wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If LLM training data is human-written, and LLM output mimics that input, how could you not have false positives?

Because it won't be in the training directly. It is applied after a model generates its distribution of likely tokens, biasing each token randomly based on a random key and unrelated to any meaning of the words. So half the time, the most likely token becomes more likely and half the time it becomes less likely, and the same for every other token (when temperature is above 0). You then look at the tokens actually pic…

How do you verify in practice then? Wouldn't you need the original prompt so you can reobtain the likely token distribution to validate again the random key(s)?

Re: How Claude marks AI-generated content

#410

Post by xp84 »

Especially when they say they'll let you use their tool to detect it, this just seems like a cat and mouse game. Have Claude write a long passage, then run it through another model with instructions to slightly paraphrase it. Ensure with the tool that it's no longer watermarked.

Even if all models are mandated by EU to do their own watermarking, it doesn't take a new frontier model to be capable of paraphrasing it, so you can use 2026's open models to do that paraphrasing, far into the future.

The funny part is that a lot of people have already developed an impressive ear for spotting AI-isms, so for now I'm not even sure how important it is to have this. No technique can be 100% guaranteed accurate anyway, and humans are pretty good at recognizing AI already.

Post reply on HN