5 ms·

You’re probably better off organizing a campaign to pressure Congress to prohibit American corporations imposing foreign laws on Americans, which is what this t

You’re probably better off organizing a campaign to pressure Congress to prohibit American corporations imposing foreign laws on Americans, which is what this text watermarking is, regardless of how you feel about it. I think it’s a precedent we really don’t want to go down if you believe in democracy and self-determination. It also clearly establishes or the very least moves in the direction that you don’t actually own or control the output of AI in any manner whatsoever, you’re just paying for it since Anthropic in this case can simply essentially brand/tag all your output that is based on not directly your own words, but a higher level process or methods that you use, including your instructions and how you structure your information and what your overall objective and goal is. Anthropic is branding it on the behest of the EU lew, which already is an entity that is diametrically opposed to democracy and self-determination based on its structure even if you ignore the fact that it violates the most fundamental concepts of self-determination in its direct contradiction of the UN Charter and implicitly the Universal Declaration of Human rights. What people done seem to be catching onto is that the EU is becoming the world dictatorship because the USA has simply had too many onerous people and that stupid constitution and its amendments that keep roadblocks world domination for the ruling class vampire.

sroussey 15d ago
I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient.
- ctoth 15d ago
  > I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient. So, you think it's good to disconnect words from their actual meanings (lie) to low-information people! I doubt this will do much to congress, but it certainly teaches us something about the sort of mind who would suggest it.
  - sroussey 15d ago
    It is simply a change in words invisible to anyone who does not have the detection API.
demibabs 15d ago
I do not understand why people remain so up in arms. AI generated text being watermarked is universally good. What benefit is there to people believing that LLM text was actually human written?
- tancop 15d ago
  The only one who decides if something gets flagged is Anthropic. There is no way to verify it independently because you need the same secret key used to create the watermark. I don't know about you but I always have a hard time trusting corporations to tell the truth. Every watermark scheme is like that on some level. If you make it public (not even open source or downloadable, API access is enough) your enemies will use it as a detection oracle and spam small changes to a document until it passes the detector every time. If you keep it private and only give trusted organizations access then there is no way to prove to the public that you're not getting paid to flag specific content as AI and discredit the author. But the biggest problem here is the way it can hurt output quality. Most LLMs (probably including Fable) are autoregressive so a couple tokens worth of "mistakes" caused by watermarking can derail the whole reasoning chain. That means you have to try again and spend more credits or silently get a worse answer than what you would get without the scheme. It's not a real problem in diffusion based image models where quality loss stays local.
- DaSHacka 15d ago
  Because the incentive has been changed from the true best output always, to a mix of "close to the best but not always" output. For the (majority) of us using Claude models for computing as a tool, obviously we're not going to be thrilled that our new tool will perform worse going forward.
  - hfhdjfjfjf 15d ago
    > true best output always literally never how it has worked
  - demibabs 15d ago
    Do you understand that LLMs are probabilistic? Ask a model the same question twice and you will get different results. So, how were you ever getting “the best result, always”?

sroussey 15d ago

I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient.

ctoth 15d ago
> I think Congresspeople hearing that EU AI Act is forcing secret codes into the infrastructure of American technology across all industries is sufficient. So, you think it's good to disconnect words from their actual meanings (lie) to low-information people! I doubt this will do much to congress, but it certainly teaches us something about the sort of mind who would suggest it.
- sroussey 15d ago
  It is simply a change in words invisible to anyone who does not have the detection API.

demibabs 15d ago

I do not understand why people remain so up in arms. AI generated text being watermarked is universally good. What benefit is there to people believing that LLM text was actually human written?

tancop 15d ago
The only one who decides if something gets flagged is Anthropic. There is no way to verify it independently because you need the same secret key used to create the watermark. I don't know about you but I always have a hard time trusting corporations to tell the truth. Every watermark scheme is like that on some level. If you make it public (not even open source or downloadable, API access is enough) your enemies will use it as a detection oracle and spam small changes to a document until it passes the detector every time. If you keep it private and only give trusted organizations access then there is no way to prove to the public that you're not getting paid to flag specific content as AI and discredit the author. But the biggest problem here is the way it can hurt output quality. Most LLMs (probably including Fable) are autoregressive so a couple tokens worth of "mistakes" caused by watermarking can derail the whole reasoning chain. That means you have to try again and spend more credits or silently get a worse answer than what you would get without the scheme. It's not a real problem in diffusion based image models where quality loss stays local.
DaSHacka 15d ago
Because the incentive has been changed from the true best output always, to a mix of "close to the best but not always" output. For the (majority) of us using Claude models for computing as a tool, obviously we're not going to be thrilled that our new tool will perform worse going forward.
- hfhdjfjfjf 15d ago
  > true best output always literally never how it has worked
- demibabs 15d ago
  Do you understand that LLMs are probabilistic? Ask a model the same question twice and you will get different results. So, how were you ever getting “the best result, always”?