6 ms·

It feels odd to call it overthinking when Anthropic has explicitly cited the EU AI Act as the reason they introduced watermarking in the first place. Your "sol

It feels odd to call it overthinking when Anthropic has explicitly cited the EU AI Act as the reason they introduced watermarking in the first place. Your "solution" is obviously not enough. It's not effective enough when somebody can easily remove that especially since watermarking of the text content itself has already been shown to be possible and is in production by all the major American model providers. "Providers shall ensure their technical solutions are effective, interoperable, robust and reliable as far as this is technically feasible, taking into account the specificities and limitations of various types of content" This is particularly relevant. There's no such thing as metadata for a raw text output so that part of your solution doesn't even make sense. That leaves your other solution which is a paragraph that it was created by AI. How's that going to work for API calls? It doesn't even begin to make sense, hence watermarking.

EagnaIonat 14d ago
> has explicitly cited the EU AI Act as the reason they introduced watermarking in the first place. How they approach it, is on them. The EU AI Act just requires that whatever is AI Generated is marked as such under certain conditions. > There's no such thing as metadata for a raw text output Which is why you just have a paragraph saying that the content is AI Generated. > How's that going to work for API calls? Again, you are overthinking what the act is about. It isn't that every API call requires to be flagged as AI. It's the final output of the solution/application that has to be marked. Or the user is warned that what is created is AI generated. It's to limit/prevent risks when AI generated content is used to make decisions that can negatively impact the public.
- weird-eye-issue 14d ago
  Your understanding of this is completely incorrect. You should browse the EU AI Act website more to see what's actually required and educate yourself. Some further reading: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-ai-generated-content https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract...
  - EagnaIonat 14d ago
    Rather than refute, just hand waving. I guess we are done here.
    - weird-eye-issue 14d ago
      Your level of reading comprehension is so incredibly low that it makes full sense why you can't see the difference between local models and the frontier models since you can't actually critically understand what you are reading anyways The comment that you just replied to contained a link that directly refuted your claims but I think you probably failed to even read it or maybe even see the link?
      - EagnaIonat 13d ago
        > Your level of reading comprehension is so incredibly low So attack the person, not the argument. Definitely done now. > contained a link that directly refuted your claims Two Courtier's Replies in one post.

EagnaIonat 14d ago

> has explicitly cited the EU AI Act as the reason they introduced watermarking in the first place. How they approach it, is on them. The EU AI Act just requires that whatever is AI Generated is marked as such under certain conditions. > There's no such thing as metadata for a raw text output Which is why you just have a paragraph saying that the content is AI Generated. > How's that going to work for API calls? Again, you are overthinking what the act is about. It isn't that every API call requires to be flagged as AI. It's the final output of the solution/application that has to be marked. Or the user is warned that what is created is AI generated. It's to limit/prevent risks when AI generated content is used to make decisions that can negatively impact the public.

weird-eye-issue 14d ago
Your understanding of this is completely incorrect. You should browse the EU AI Act website more to see what's actually required and educate yourself. Some further reading: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-practice-ai-generated-content https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract...
- EagnaIonat 14d ago
  Rather than refute, just hand waving. I guess we are done here.
  - weird-eye-issue 14d ago
    Your level of reading comprehension is so incredibly low that it makes full sense why you can't see the difference between local models and the frontier models since you can't actually critically understand what you are reading anyways The comment that you just replied to contained a link that directly refuted your claims but I think you probably failed to even read it or maybe even see the link?
    - EagnaIonat 13d ago
      > Your level of reading comprehension is so incredibly low So attack the person, not the argument. Definitely done now. > contained a link that directly refuted your claims Two Courtier's Replies in one post.