6 ms·

This is just C2PA for Claude-processed files, apparently. It's not related to their text watermarking. C2PA is file metadata and can be trivially stripped away

This is just C2PA for Claude-processed files, apparently. It's not related to their text watermarking. C2PA is file metadata and can be trivially stripped away, unlike hidden watermarks, e.g. SynthID.

ramon156 14d ago
The way I read it, I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end. Is that not the case?
- dannyw 14d ago
  That’s incompatible with the file not leaving your browser, which you can trivially verify with the Network tab in chrome (or wireshack, etc). This is just a C2PA metadata checker.
  - spockz 14d ago
    Why? The browser can see the file and contents so it can calculate and send the hash over without the actual file ever leaving the browser.
  - Retr0id 14d ago
    Strictly speaking, properly checking C2PA metadata requires network requests in the general case, because you need to check if the signing certificate has been revoked or not via OCSP. But in anthropic's use case they can probably get away with just pinning their own certs in the verification webpage.
- quaintdev 14d ago
  > I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end That would invalidate the hash on minor changes. Too much effort and not enough return.
atp_studio_coll 14d ago
[flagged]
mhitza 14d ago
That is where their responsibility ends in terms of the EU AI Act. And that is fine and how it should be, no secret watermarks.
- a3w 14d ago
  Watermarks should even be removable "if substantially proofread or altered" in the EU for the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
- a3w 14d ago
  Watermarks cane even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says. For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
  - hparadiz 14d ago
    It's not gonna survive my linter in a tightly coupled code base where it's not allowed to write comments but I do resent it for trying.
  - WalterGR 14d ago
    (If you post a comment here on HN, then hit the back button, edit your comment, and click “reply” again, you end up posting multiple comments. That’s what’s happened here.)
- a3w 14d ago
  Watermarks can even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says (for now. There might be a transition period on that). For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear if making watermarks removable is a may, shall, or should, according to legislation. It certainly is not a must.
- bilalq 14d ago
  There's no way text watermarking isn't causing a degradation in writing quality.

ramon156 14d ago

The way I read it, I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end. Is that not the case?

dannyw 14d ago
That’s incompatible with the file not leaving your browser, which you can trivially verify with the Network tab in chrome (or wireshack, etc). This is just a C2PA metadata checker.
- spockz 14d ago
  Why? The browser can see the file and contents so it can calculate and send the hash over without the actual file ever leaving the browser.
- Retr0id 14d ago
  Strictly speaking, properly checking C2PA metadata requires network requests in the general case, because you need to check if the signing certificate has been revoked or not via OCSP. But in anthropic's use case they can probably get away with just pinning their own certs in the verification webpage.
quaintdev 14d ago
> I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end That would invalidate the hash on minor changes. Too much effort and not enough return.

atp_studio_coll 14d ago

[flagged]

mhitza 14d ago

That is where their responsibility ends in terms of the EU AI Act. And that is fine and how it should be, no secret watermarks.

a3w 14d ago
Watermarks should even be removable "if substantially proofread or altered" in the EU for the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
a3w 14d ago
Watermarks cane even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says. For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
- hparadiz 14d ago
  It's not gonna survive my linter in a tightly coupled code base where it's not allowed to write comments but I do resent it for trying.
- WalterGR 14d ago
  (If you post a comment here on HN, then hit the back button, edit your comment, and click “reply” again, you end up posting multiple comments. That’s what’s happened here.)
a3w 14d ago
Watermarks can even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says (for now. There might be a transition period on that). For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear if making watermarks removable is a may, shall, or should, according to legislation. It certainly is not a must.
bilalq 14d ago
There's no way text watermarking isn't causing a degradation in writing quality.