I notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. 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, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over that have trouble understanding the concept.

> When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response.

I'd like to know a lot more about how that works.

A lot of my interactions with Claude return pretty precise text. If I ask it to edit a project and refactor a specific function in several places I know exactly what I want to happen, it will NOT be OK if those refactors have some kind of weird pattern baked into their text to act as a watermark.

I guess this may be covered by this:

> Content generated by Claude may not carry a detectable mark if, for example: [...] The passage is very short, leaving too little text for a reliable signal;

I've heard that this kind of watermarking process works by biassing the statistical sampling towards a partition of the set of possible next tokens (red set and green set), at each position. It might only be a slight nudge each time, but over a sequence of tokens, the likelihood of repeating the bias by chance is increasingly improbable.

The bias is different for each position and follows a defined RNG, seeded somehow predictably.

Can be either an open algorithm, or not. If not open, then an API could be provided to determine if text is watermarked or not.

How it applies to code - maybe it could be a subtle nudge to symbol names, etc, I'm just speculating (I only read about this in passing very recently).

We need to just stop pretending we can reliably tell if plain text is written by an LLM.

It’s just not a reasonable ask.

  outputText = promptLLM(prompt)
  scrubbedText = scrubWatermark(outputText)

Is this just to appease regulators? They surely know this won't work in the long run.

So my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.

I have had a hunch for a while now that (in addition to these tools), Anthropic has actually leaned in to Claude's distinctive manner of writing since it makes the text more obviously AI generated and thus less susceptible to misuse.

That's not necessarily the same thing as a markov-style fingerprint but it could be a correlated factor.

Can someone help me understand how exactly this watermarking of text works?

Given that text is, well, text, and not some kind of binary format, I don't see how any watermarking can work unless you insert characters which are invalid under Unicode. I further don't really understand how this won't be perceivable by assistive technology (the "watermark" will just appear as either unreadable characters, or if the watermark is mixed thoroughly enough into the text, it will scramble the text to any speech synthesizer and will make it really really obvious). Thus, I don't see how this wouldn't be insanely trivial to remove. And this is before we get into things being put on the clipboard. Sure, I can press the "Copy" button at the end of each response, but what I can also do is manually select the response and copy it, or only copy partial selections, or any number of other things. How does this "watermark" (or any "watermark" technology) take into account this?

So, really, to summarize this: I see no way of this actually being technologically achievable unless we revise the very core of how computers work and encodings for textual information. So I'm very curious as to how this is actually supposed to work.

An interesting factor of this is competition.

If Claude was the only model family they could ship a change like this and users who want to cheat (or don't like watermarks for other reasons) would just have to put up with it.

In a world with many different competing models, the risk of losing customers to other providers over this is much more real.

Maybe they've looked at the numbers and the portion of people who clearly use Claude to cheat on examples etc is so tiny that losing them to other providers isn't a problem?

> We’re also working to enable users and other third parties to detect Claude’s embedded watermarks and provenance metadata.

This seems to be similar in execution to Google's SynthID. I hope they release actual code the technically proficient can use, unlike SynthID which can only (afaik) be queried with Gemini's UI.