6 ms·

> But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated

by whack 1mo ago

> But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated Are you talking about pieces that were fully human-written with zero AI editing/rewriting etc? If so, what makes you think that false positives will happen there? They aren't looking for "writing styles" or emdashes etc. They are using watermarks and metadata. If you're talking about people using AI to copy-edit text they manually wrote, this was explicitly called out in the article: > A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive. Detecting a Claude mark tells you that the content may have been processed by Claude. It does not, on its own, confirm the full provenance of the content. For example: Claude may not be the original author. People often use Claude to proofread, translate, summarize, or convert files. The output can carry a Claude mark even if the underlying ideas, text, or data originated from another source; The content may have changed after Claude processed it. Marked content may be modified, excerpted, or combined with other material after Claude processed it.

Dilettante_ 1mo ago
The former. I'm not sure what you mean by metadata, but my expectation was that anything that Claude could put into the plaintext to identify itself may plausibly also accidentally be produced by [a million monkeys on typewriters/one in a million human writers], since in the end, the writing is using the same language and symbols that humans use. How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness?
- derefr 1mo ago
  > How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness? They could be doing invisible and vaguely-harmless Unicode stuff. Insertion of zero-width joiners and non-joiners, replacement of regular spaces with non-breaking spaces, building spaces from multiple hairline spaces, intentional use of non-NFC-normalized codepoint sequences for accented characters, etc. Text with all this junk in it still reads the same; it just might wrap a little strangely, or not byte-match / collate correctly in a database (and Anthropic has never made a guarantee that their models would be capable of emitting text with these properties, so that’s fine.) And, importantly, no regular text or document editor would insert these things (especially in the useless places you could insert them for watermarking.) You only really see them in text that’s been explicitly typeset for a specific layout (e.g. in text-containing SVGs, website mastheads, or game HUDs) or for print publication. Of course, if this is the technique they end up using, then it’s very simple to strip it out by canonicalizing the text (i.e. Unicode-normalizing it + stripping out invisible layout characters + replacing “weird spaces” with regular ones, etc. Essentially the same thing many sites already do to user-generated content to prevent users from using Unicode features to break the page’s layout.

by whack 1mo ago

Dilettante_ 1mo ago

The former. I'm not sure what you mean by metadata, but my expectation was that anything that Claude could put into the plaintext to identify itself may plausibly also accidentally be produced by [a million monkeys on typewriters/one in a million human writers], since in the end, the writing is using the same language and symbols that humans use. How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness?

derefr 1mo ago
> How unique could the LLM possibly make it while still retaining its usefulness? They could be doing invisible and vaguely-harmless Unicode stuff. Insertion of zero-width joiners and non-joiners, replacement of regular spaces with non-breaking spaces, building spaces from multiple hairline spaces, intentional use of non-NFC-normalized codepoint sequences for accented characters, etc. Text with all this junk in it still reads the same; it just might wrap a little strangely, or not byte-match / collate correctly in a database (and Anthropic has never made a guarantee that their models would be capable of emitting text with these properties, so that’s fine.) And, importantly, no regular text or document editor would insert these things (especially in the useless places you could insert them for watermarking.) You only really see them in text that’s been explicitly typeset for a specific layout (e.g. in text-containing SVGs, website mastheads, or game HUDs) or for print publication. Of course, if this is the technique they end up using, then it’s very simple to strip it out by canonicalizing the text (i.e. Unicode-normalizing it + stripping out invisible layout characters + replacing “weird spaces” with regular ones, etc. Essentially the same thing many sites already do to user-generated content to prevent users from using Unicode features to break the page’s layout.