Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft Word has not claimed ownership in 40 years. Why would Anthropic do?
Microsoft Word does not write your documents for you.
[dead]
Check if a file was made with Claude
81–90 of 144 posts
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#82This thing works using WebAssembly - https://claude.com/_next/static/media/c2pa_verify_wasm_bg.53... - which is a WASM compiled version of this Rust library: https://github.com/contentauth/c2pa-rs
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#83Like so many things with AI, I like this and hate it at the same time.
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#84Tried one of simonwillison's pelicans: We didn’t find any signs this file was processed by Claude!
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#85What 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.
And it's one-way in the direction that typically no one cares about.
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#86Off topic: Is the grammar off here? Shouldn't it be "by Claude" instead of "with Claude"?
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#87Does code also get watermarked? Surely you can't add non printable characters, except perhaps in comments?
There is a text watermark detector API but it's in private preview right now. Very curious if it works with code as well as prose.
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#88Off topic: Is the grammar off here? Shouldn't it be "by Claude" instead of "with Claude"?
Both are fine. Use “by” if you think Claude do all the work. Use “with” if you consider it a tool.
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
C2PA cryptographically guarantees that the bytes came from a hardware/software signer and that the signed payload has not been modified since that signature was applied.
So no, C2PA is not as easy to spoof as EXIF.
And no, the existence of DRM doesn't validate the integrity or the provenance of the bytes.
Re: Check if a file was made with Claude
#90What 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)
[dead]