you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 75 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Assuming a checker tool is public it's enough for a teacher to verify classwork, but AI providers having the sole ability to identify generated content with no way to independently verify is not a real solution.

Plus this site advertises a tool to remove this watermarking, so it can't be that hard to scrub out if you're aware of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 59 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    The goal is to ensure that they don’t inbreed their models, not fix the problems they’ve caused.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 3 weeks ago*

    This won't fix the inbreeding issue, anyway. The bias is extremely slight, but random, and orthogonal to Claude's own "slop patterns" and tendencies. And theres tons of other LLM content that will end up in their dataset outside their control.

    Besides, as much as Claude accusess others of it, everyone's training on everyone else's output and they know it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    I wonder what would happen if some start to watermark document they doesn't want in Claude training

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago

    There's a key involved that we don't have, so people can't do this on their own. It's pretty fascinating. Training models would have to be told to check for watermarks and ignore them, but yeah that would be an effective way for the providers to avoid ingesting their own AI output.

  • source
  • parent