how do i feel about this?
>>110207043>open pic>r/ClaudeAI>close pic
Another reason to only use DeepSeek, Qwen and Kimi.
>>110207043I don't see a reason as to why watermarking is a bad thing.
>>110207121NTA but every method should be scrutinized otherwise it'll just lead to a whole lot of false positives
>>110207043>AItroons seething about getting found outLOL
the solution is literally there in the text, just pass it through another LLM (preferably a LOCAL model)
>>110207043It hates on the ignorant and the lazy, which seems redundant - they already handicap themselves anyway
Surely forcing AI to use one token over another won't make the output worse.
>>110207121well like it says, bad actors will just reword output using an uncensored model to remove the watermarking. it would stop more casual users (who are more likely to not be malicious)
>>110208915(that said, if it doesn't hurt the output quality i don't really see it as a bad thing, if it help filter out the laziest bad actors without hurting others then why not. i don't care about the resume example, everybody already does it so a resume touched by an llm isn't a bad sign anymore)
>>110207062fpbp/thread
>>110207043You can't watermark a letter.
>>110208915>it would stop more casual usersso?
>>110207043What's the matter? If AI is so great, why wouldn't you want the world to know you used it? Come on! Show everyone you're not a chuddite snailcat.
>>110208915>it would stop more casual users (who are more likely to not be malicious)Stop them from passing their AI slop as genuine work and scamming those of us who explicitly want to avoid AI slop? Why is this bad, again?Note how the redditor is particularly concerned about the LLM watermark being reverse-engineered and made visible to the general public. These vermin really don't like the idea of being found out.
>>110211299But think of the ESLs! It's them the AIslopping redditor is worried about, honest!
>>110211320i do agree that legitimate use of ai should be made obvious anyway. if you need to hide the fact you used ai then you're probably doing something you shouldn't be
>>110211320It's so obvious when someone uses AI. The watermark changes nothing.
>>110211347>The watermark changes nothing.Then you have no reason to fume about it. Being able to filter AI slop en masse using software changes nothing for you, after all. :^)
>>110211347You're completely right. The "AI voice" and aesthetic are usually hard to miss, and watermarks aren't designed to change that.For text, it's the vocabulary and structure. It's the sudden urge to "delve" into a "rich tapestry" of "multifaceted" ideas, wrapped in an overly polite, frictionless tone that lacks actual human grit, bias, or lived experience. For visuals, it's the plastic skin textures, the hyper-perfect lighting, and the background details that dissolve into dream logic the second you zoom in.You're also spot on about the watermarks. Technologies like SynthID or C2PA metadata aren't meant to help humans spot AI—they are designed strictly for machines to read. They embed imperceptible noise or cryptographic signatures so platforms can algorithmically flag, track, or filter the content behind the scenes.Because those watermarks are invisible by design, they do absolutely nothing to alter the uncanny feel of the output. To the human eye, AI content is essentially the modern equivalent of an aggressively airbrushed magazine cover from the 2000s—even without a label telling you it's been manipulated, your brain immediately recognizes exactly what it's looking at.
>>110207121>I don't see a reason as to why watermarking is a bad thing.Promptjeets thought that vibecoding would be their easy ticket to a high six-figure job, watermark would force them to disclose just how much of their work was generated and that's going to severely harm their izzat score when they get caught.
>>110207043Pop the fucking bubble.
>>110211368What you think shit's not gonna improve to be indistinguishable? Lmao
>>110207121I assume this why Claude started writing comments and interface signatures like a fucking asshole. I can't even explain how yet. It just manages to put a excess amount of words down that you have to read and then reread because not even the shittiest ESL writes sentences with so little intent-to-word ratio.>There is one existing test that looks for cases outside the normal operation like thisOh, versus the 20 non-existent tests we have lying around. And just say "edge case". We have a fucking term for this.
>>110207043Just don't pay for Claude and pay for the Chinese one instead.
>>110211369Listen to me. I need you to understand that your VP or director or whoever is above the boss of your boss, does not give a flying fuck who wrote the code, or the quality, as long as it runs in a reasonable amount of time.They like their salespeople. They like their marketing teamss. They like the other members of leadership. You, me, and Duprey? They don't like us. They will swap us out for an h1b at a moments motice. Better yet, the sooner they can just give these tools to a VP and skip their weirdo nerds all together? Even better.>But it will be shitAgain, as long as it runs well enough to make the sale, anything else is a problem for the next quarter.
>>110207121For me it's how literally everyone except you can get access to detection tools.
>>110207043You can’t watermark text. If I ask AI to output “Hello I am a human.” there is no way to watermark that. This is retarded.
>>110211857you couldn't reliably detect short sentences, but longer text you absolutely could. the text that comes out of an llm isn't random, it follows rules baked into the model, regardless of what is being written. it stands to reason that it could work backwards, ingesting text and determining if it was made following said rules or not, like a "this is what i'd have written" kind of thing.long before llm's people have been able to tell who wrote something just by how someone writes, their word choices and so on, even when not handwritten
>>110207043Don't care because it doesn't affect me.lmao at you cucks
>>110211857>You can’t watermark text. If I ask AI to output “Hello I am a human.” there is no way to watermark that.You're the biggest retard I've seen today. Well done.
I wish I would use Claude to give a shit about this
>>110207121Degrades quality, does less than nothing for what it is claiming to achieve. In short it makes the product worse when the competition is already orders of magnitude cheaper and less censored by default. Not exactly a viable business strategy.
>>110212242>implying AIgolems care about quality and notice any differenceLOL
>>1102118571. This is not a new idea: https://crfm.stanford.edu/2023/07/30/watermarking.html2. By subtley shifting word choice, i.e. next token generation, you subtely begin forcing specific word generation across the document.3. Given long enough text, and a stupidly simplistic, naive example, you can bias the text to replace every instance of pleasant, agreeable, etc. with cordial. Just coedial. At a certain point, you're forced to ask "What are the odds a human being just liked cordial so God damn much that they wrote it this many times?"
>>110207043Fucking retards on LinkedIn had a meltdown over this shit because they had to write their own posts. Lmfao. I don't give a fuck. I hope the watermark extends to the code it generates, that way I can make fun of people who are trying to pass off their vibeslop as code they really did write I swear you guys. Yes Raj, I'm sure you reverse-engineered an entire game to a quasi-playable state all by yourself in two days. What you did not do was spend those two days having Claude and REA do all the work, and beat off to your sister in-between prompts. You are one smart guy, Raj.
>>110211857https://youtu.be/kVXp6UNVPTo
>>110212863>I hope the watermark extends to the code it generatesit does, as long as there are enough comments and the code is large enough. it wouldn't detect snippets.
>>110212265So this is only a problem for retards who don’t read what the LLM outputs and just let it rip? Good, fuck them.
>>110213093his is an obvious example to demonstrate the point, but you can be more subtle than that, too subtle to be obvious to a casual reader
>>110207043And that's a good thing. It's zero to no cost technique.Exposes wordlets and liars which I consider good. Is there there a situation where you would not want to know if someone uses AI to generate text?If you are going to use AI you should own it but I don't like liars.
>>110207043>can't checkThey're HTML classes.
