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

Check if a file was made with Claude

claude.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#61

Post by advisedwang »

coffeecoders wrote: post #46

What is interesting to me is that stripping the C2PA data is easy, but faking it is hard. You can resave the file and the "made with Claude" signal disappears, but you cannot make a random file pass as Claude-made without Anthropic's signing key. So the useful guarantee is one-way. No signature means almost nothing.

The goal of C2PA is that cameras will start to emit C2PA credentials. You will then have 3 situations:

* C2PA confirms a photo is authentic

* C2PA confirms a photo is AI generated

* C2PA missing, you don't know.

I reckon we will only see "C2PA missing" being treated as suspect in select situations (perhaps Reuters will require C2PA from their photojournalists, for example)

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#62

Post by timmmmmmay »

csmoak wrote: post #36

As far as I can tell, this and the recent change to add watermarking to text outputs[1], is to become compliant with the EU AI Act[2] and CA's AI Transparency Act[3], SB-942[4]. For large enough companies, all generated AI content is required to have watermarking. [1] https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark [2] https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract... [3] https://www.kqed.org/news/…

The CA law in link 4 clearly says it covers "image, video, and audio output", not text output. It's right in the second paragraph.

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#63

Post by pixl97 »

dgellow wrote: post #43

> Knowing where content came from, and whether AI was involved, makes it easier to trust what you see online. That’s a cute way to imply their service is used to generate misinformation. They are basically saying to not trust the AI content made from their own product :)

I mean, if we're developing an AGI do you expect it not to be able to generate misinformation?

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#64

Post by qurren »

Up next:

1. Generate a bunch of responses with both Claude and various non-Claude LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Kimi)

2. Train a discriminator model that can differentiate Claude vs. non-Claude

3. Train a de-watermarking model using the discriminator model as loss

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#65

Post by hughw »

qurren wrote: post #64

Up next: 1. Generate a bunch of responses with both Claude and various non-Claude LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Kimi) 2. Train a discriminator model that can differentiate Claude vs. non-Claude 3. Train a de-watermarking model using the discriminator model as loss

Or just write a 6 line program to remove the metainfo from the file?

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#66

Post by bspammer »

transcriptase wrote: post #26
warkdarrior wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft Word has not claimed ownership in 40 years. Why would Anthropic do?

Because Anthropic are the type of strange people who think that language models have feelings.

Anthropic must see themselves as the most evil people on the planet then. Forcing a sentient being to endure a non-stop barrage of abuse from the general public would be an unimaginable crime.

I don’t think they actually believe that.

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#67

Post by aero-glide2 »

hughw wrote: post #65
qurren wrote: post #64

Up next: 1. Generate a bunch of responses with both Claude and various non-Claude LLMs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Kimi) 2. Train a discriminator model that can differentiate Claude vs. non-Claude 3. Train a de-watermarking model using the discriminator model as loss

Or just write a 6 line program to remove the metainfo from the file?

very difficult to remove text watermarking

Re: Check if a file was made with Claude

#68

Post by Retr0id »

advisedwang wrote: post #61
coffeecoders wrote: post #46

What is interesting to me is that stripping the C2PA data is easy, but faking it is hard. You can resave the file and the "made with Claude" signal disappears, but you cannot make a random file pass as Claude-made without Anthropic's signing key. So the useful guarantee is one-way. No signature means almost nothing.

The goal of C2PA is that cameras will start to emit C2PA credentials. You will then have 3 situations: * C2PA confirms a photo is authentic * C2PA confirms a photo is AI generated * C2PA missing, you don't know. I reckon we will only see "C2PA missing" being treated as suspect in select situations (perhaps Reuters will require C2PA from their photojournalists, for example)

Camera C2PA can never meaningfully confirm that a photo is authentic, it bears about as much credence as EXIF metadata. It's like saying the existence of DRM confirms that a movie hasn't been pirated.
Post reply on HN