Not enough. AI generated content should be required by law to contain both visible and invisible watermarks.

This seems a riot, trying to sneak in invisible copyright really does seem like the copyright system is well and truly fucked.

It arrived to try and help with the deluge of slop from Guttenberg nonsense but the whole idea, and copyleft, seems to be imploding at the moment.

So then they can lie and say real pictures have the watermark?

So they can lie and say fake images don't have the watermark?

So the AI looking for the watermark can hallucinate?

Yeah, I'm sure that's super reliable.

Can someone explain to me how is it possible to watermark text? Because it makes no sense to me.

There are multiple major flaws with watermarks for texts:

1. Their method only works for longer texts as it relies on statistical effects that aren't clear enough to detect in a very short text.
2. They are resting their approach on an incorrect assumption: their models prefer certain words and if they appear more frequently than in a random text, they assume it's generate by their model. But who says texts are random? Out of billions of people there will be some who have a similar preference for some words and their texts will always be wrongfully accused of AI-generated just because they happen to have a similar word choice preference. The shorter the texts the likelier that issue becomes.
3. There will soon be tools that replace a random amount of words with synonyms automatically and therefore remove any chances of detecting the watermark.

Google already does this with Gemini.

Not only does the technical side work very intermittently at detection when you do carry over the same file, but with an "invisible" watermark, it can be bypassed entirely as easily as with a screenshot.

And who will care about those? The slop consumers will still consume...