Live data from Hacker News

Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

daringfireball.net

51–60 of 776 posts

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#51
>I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

Does the author think he is currently getting T=0 output from Claude? Is he under the impression that T=0 produces the "best" writing?

This entire article just seems so detached from the basics of how LLMs work.

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#52
post #39
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a key reason why humans write better prose than LLMs - we can try to choose the best word every time, and go back and restructure sentences and paragraphs if we want. On the other hand, LLMs are forced into picking some likely-ish word, and then have to build the rest of their response to retcon that choice into making sense. Even good human writers would probably struggle with this constraint. It wou…

This was true in the ChatGPT era. Now we're in a world with reasoning tokens, where a model can thoroughly plan out the response it wants to make. If anything, it makes the style worse.

Isn't this just chain-of-thought though, doing the same thing multiple times without necessarily defining one path?

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#54

Crazy how a smart person like this fails to understand the gumbel softmax technique. It does not affect writing quality at all, provably. The very fact that there is generally no "best next token" with 100% certainty is precisely why the trick works (you cannot watermark a response to "respond with the To be or not to be soliloquy from the first folio Hamlet", for precisely this reason).

Making blog posts about AI that make it apparent that the tech is going whoosh is a choice.

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#55

Crazy how a smart person like this fails to understand the gumbel softmax technique. It does not affect writing quality at all, provably. The very fact that there is generally no "best next token" with 100% certainty is precisely why the trick works (you cannot watermark a response to "respond with the To be or not to be soliloquy from the first folio Hamlet", for precisely this reason).

[dead]

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#58
I think it's pretty dishonest of Anthropic to frame their watermark as EU regulation compliance. The EU regulation, from my understanding, requires AI content to be labeled for human viewers. In the meanwhile the Anthropic new release on the watermark says this.

> The difference between watermarked and un-watermarked text will not be distinguishable to readers

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark

Which is to say, it does not actually meet the EU AI act requirements which require transparency to humans. Not to mention that if the detection requires access to the base models, it makes anthropic the only entity who gets the say on if a piece of text comes out of Claude. Anthropic is both the player and the referee here.

If there is one takeaway you should have from this fiasco it is that you should be wary of using tools that doesn't serve your needs and your needs only.

Re: Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing

#60

Crazy how a smart person like this fails to understand the gumbel softmax technique. It does not affect writing quality at all, provably. The very fact that there is generally no "best next token" with 100% certainty is precisely why the trick works (you cannot watermark a response to "respond with the To be or not to be soliloquy from the first folio Hamlet", for precisely this reason).

[dead]
Post reply on HN