Top
Best
New

Posted by ropbear 22 hours ago

Anthropic's ‘watermark’ text adulteration in Claude is a perversion of writing(daringfireball.net)
709 points | 617 commentspage 8
codedokode 21 hours ago|
Watermarks are garbage because they may embed account id, IP address and deanonimize you. That's why we should be using open-weights LLM whenever possible.
dofm 19 hours ago||
I don’t disagree about open weights (though the enabling aspect there is actually open source inference, right?)

But it feels to me like you would need a hell of a lot of text to bury even a simple account ID. The nudges they are talking about are of the order of a handful of bits over several hundred words, I think?

alienbaby 20 hours ago||
This is the first post I've seen mention it. How traceable are the embedded codes?
addandsubtract 19 hours ago||
There was an earlier instance of this here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48734373
mickdarling 3 hours ago||
Watermarks are context poisoning.
lemarchr 21 hours ago||
Some here are arguing that mechanisms used by LLM providers already derail the goal of "the very best, most precise words at every single decision point", therefore the author is misguided.

The author has expressed a preference. Assume that there is a sequence of tokens, such that it is considered the absolute best by the author. This particular method of watermarking makes it less likely to generate that sequence, by definition.

I feel their argument would have been clearer and stronger if they had spent more time exploring the alternatives, and whether these alternatives would be just as effective. It is trivially easy to remove invisible tokens.

Like it or not, there is a public good to being able to identify AI generated content, and a small degredation in quality is tolerable in my opinion.

I don't think anybody has to worry about this issue though. Manual writing, coding, and proof reading continues to be an option. Where AI output is nothing to be ashamed of, the tools are available. For everyone else, there will be LLM providers that ignore EU law.

capitalsigma 21 hours ago||
If the author has preferences on their "own writing" that conflict with Anthropic's, then they should actually write it themselves rather than paying Anthropic to do it. Private companies don't owe you anything, even less so when they're beholden to laws in foreign jurisdictions.
Barrin92 21 hours ago||
>Assume that there is a sequence of tokens, such that it is considered the absolute best by the author

You can't assume that because if that was the case he'd already know what sentence to write, because that's what that means.

The notion of a best sentence requires a final cause, an end to write to. By their very nature that's not how LLMs work, so you can't 'degrade' them on that front. They can't lose a property they didn't have.

andrethegiant 6 hours ago||
Great question buried at the bottom:

> Also, what happens if another major global market makes it unlawful for AI to secretly watermark generated text?

elpakal 3 hours ago|
That is a good question

> We’re applying watermarking globally at launch because we don't yet have a durable way to scope it by region. However, we will continue to evaluate different approaches, and will share updates when we have them.

So unless they figure it out, would that 'major global market' essentially need to be the US?

Bluestein 11 hours ago||
Heck. The entire process itself of LLM text generation is a perversion of writing.-

Further heck: It can be said it ain't even writing.-

blfr 11 hours ago||
The main reason we don't see much quality degradation in LLM writing output is because they're already poor writers. This is the load bearing reason.

I was bulding a small interpreter and writing an article in ~markdown yesterday with Fable. And while it codes like a pro, it writes like a sixth grader.

Let's see how these watermarking stats hold up if/when llms start writing well.

pikuseru 3 hours ago||
If you don’t like it don’t use it
PufPufPuf 9 hours ago||
LLM inference already isn't deterministic, the watermarking technique only limits the space of possible random seeds. There is no reason to believe that this subset of seeds somehow produces lower quality output.
beej71 17 hours ago||
I guess I understand the complaint, but LLMs are already crap at writing, IMNSHO. And, yes, maybe this will make them marginally more crap, but in my mind we're talking the difference between a 30% grade and a 29%.
herrkanin 7 hours ago|
Is this 'best word' with us in the room right now?
More comments...