Some systems like SynthID (for Google's AI) get around this problem. In fact you don't need to know the LLM's internal state, and defeating it would likely involve breaking up most blocks of 3 words. The oversimplified explanation is that it introduces a function g that gives a score to each word, with the score being (pseudo)randomly determined by your secret key. For each next word the LLM generates, the LLM produces a small list of candidate next words, and the one with the highest score according to g is selected. You should expect that the LLM will generally pick words with a high score, but the score itself is independent of the LLM. To detect a watermark, you need to know g and the secret key, and you check if the average score is much higher than expected from normal text.

Now, one question is, will this bias to the LLM to favor certain words? The solution is that for each next word, you append the last 3 words (nothing special about 3, just a small number) to the secret key for g, and this repeatedly scrambles which words have a high score. To defeat the watermark, you would need to break up most blocks of 3 words. I'm sure there are deeper issues with this, but I have not studied the topic that much.

From a technical perspective, I don't really know how to let it track specific users. The goal is that if some AI vendor provides their key, it is easy for them to prove that their AI produced the text. So I guess if a user wanted to show that they generated the text, they could prove it. But usually AI users don't want people knowing that they used the slop cannon. In any case, Anthropic's own announcement states that their watermark does not contain identifying information for users.

In any case, some proud AI users are now frightened that there might be a way for people to identify that they use such a wonderful tool. How will I ever deliver low quality slop for my contracts now?

He said he uses AI for code reviews and translations, and worried an AI label on code shipped to clients could raise questions about authorship or trigger contract penalties.

Having code attributed to Claude "definitely would be not desirable," he said, as he would not want professionally shipped code to carry an invisible marker that could raise questions about authorship, compliance, or client policies.

My pet theory is that their reading comprehension has degraded, so this is all they can handle now.

Anthropic is now watermarking the outputs of its AI. For once this is some AI news that doesn't completely piss me off, and it's amusing to see all the uninformed boosters get in a tizzy about this.

I actually understand at a reasonable level how this watermarking works. A year ago, I watched Scott Aaronson give a talk about it, and from what I know he was somewhat involved in developing the theory behind it while working for OpenAI. But at the time my thought was, "He is naive if he thinks these companies would ever implement this out of the goodness of their hearts." And I was right; Anthropic is only doing watermarking now thanks to the EU AI Act, even though the theory has long been developed.

Watermarking doesn't mean adding an extra watermark that can be easily removed. It instead directly affects the output of the chatbot itself. Fundamentally, an LLM is still a most-likely-next-word-predictor. More precisely, an LLM produces a probability distribution of what the next word can be. For example, "my pet is a ..." could give a distribution of 60% dog, 30% cat, and 10% axolotl. Normally, an LLM would randomly choose the next word based on this distribution, and this is one reason why LLMs are nondeterministic (there's another parameter called "temperature" that affects this, but no need to get into that).

With watermarking, instead of a truly random choice, the randomness instead comes from a cryptographic pseudorandom generator seeded with a secret key from the AI company. If you don't know the secret key, then you can't really tell that watermarking was used. But if you do know the secret key, then the idea is you can tell when the text was generated by the LLM because you know exactly what word should be next. It would be a freak coincidence if some non-AI text just happened to choose the correct next word every time. Thus, you can provide a service to tell if some text was generated by the LLM. (This technically makes the LLM "deterministic", in a completely useless sense.)

Now, I think this is a step in the right direction, but it has its limits. The biggest problem is that you don't want people to just move to a different LLM without watermarking, and that's exhibit #832593 why government regulation is important. Another issue is that sometimes there is very little randomness in what the next word should be ("The first president of the USA is George ..."). Finally, watermarking can be defeated by editing the output, although you would have to break up most of the blocks of consecutive words. I have a feeling most AI users are not the type to put in extra effort after copy-pasting the output directly from the chat window.

I suppose it will discourage some of the "use cases" of LLMs, such as drowning the world with spam Slopstack essays. Ah, who am I kidding? Everyone could already tell it's AI generated, they don't care!

The last several years have been the monkey's paw moment for rationalists, where they keep getting what they want and realizing it's actually bad. As for why they keep getting what they want, just look at who's funding them.

(Also featuring a "Chinese curse" that isn't actually a phrase in Chinese. At least it's not "may you live in interesting times".)

I've seen this story play out in software engineering: people were very impressed when the AI does unexpectedly well in one out of 50 attempts on an easy task, and so people decided to trust it for everything and turn their codebases into disasters. There was no great wave of new high-quality software. Instead, the only real result was that existing software has become far more buggy and insecure.

Now we have people using AI in science and math because it was impressive in random demonstrations of solving math problems. I now have friends asking me why I'm not using AI, and also saying that AI will be better than all mathematicians in 30 years or whatever. Do you really think I refuse to use AI out of ignorance? No, I know too much about it! I have seen the same story play out in software engineering, and what makes this any different?

The article's entire premise is Musk saying some random shit. Remember how Musk said that he would land a man on Mars in 10 years 13 years ago? Honestly, I am incensed that people like Musk and Trump can just say shit and many people will just accept it. I can no longer tolerate it.

Putting aside the very real human ability to screw up such a concept and turn any fair system into an unfair one, ...

He says this after mentioning UBI. He really doesn't want to confront the unfortunate fact that UBI is entirely a political issue. Whatever magical beliefs one may have about how AI can create wealth, the question of how to distribute it is a social arrangement. What exactly stops the wealthy from consolidating all that wealth for themselves? The goodness of their hearts? Or is it political pushback (and violence in the bad old days), as demonstrated in every single example we have in history?

I'd say the problem is even worse now. In previous eras, some wealthy people funded libraries and parks. Nowadays we see them donate to weirdo rationalist nonsense that is completely disconnected from reality.

No getting up early and commuting on public transit. ...

This is followed by four whole paragraphs about how the office sucks and wouldn't it be wonderful if AI got rid of all that. Guess what, we have remote work already! Remember how, during COVID, many software engineering jobs went fully remote, and it turned out that the work was perfectly doable and the workers' lives improved? But then there were so many puff pieces by managers about the wonderful environment of the office, and back to the office they went. Don't worry, when the magical AI is here, they'll change their minds.

Yes, there are "mindless, stupid, inane things" like chores that are unavoidable. There are also other mindless, stupid, inane things that are entirely avoidable but exist anyway because some people base their entire lives around number go up.

I decided to take a look at the bitcoin white paper.

Usually, the introduction of a technical paper is fluff and people quickly move on to the technical parts. However, the casual claims made in the first paragraph of this paper have aged extremely poorly, to say the least. In a better world, Bitcoin would have remained as an obscure academic toy, and this introduction would have remained fluff.

While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model.

What weaknesses are there in the trust based model? Let's find out!

Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.

It seems like this guy really loves non-reversible transactions! But as we've seen with the history of crypto, non-reversible transactions sound really good until you fall victim to a crypto scam and there is no way to appeal to the bank to reverse the charges. Reversibility actually increases trust because you no longer need to be absolutely certain that you're dealing with an honest person.

A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable.

Almost like that is a problem of human nature. And it's not like cryptocurrency has a spotless record when dealing with fraud! The problem with fraud is not the third party (the bank), but with the second party (the merchant or customer you're dealing with).

The introduction is not long, and most of the paper concerns the technical details of the construction of Bitcoin. By itself, there really is no way to complain about a pile of definitions. But there are still dumb comments that have aged poorly in retrospect.

A block header with no transactions would be about 80 bytes. If we suppose blocks are generated every 10 minutes, 80 bytes * 6 * 24 * 365 = 4.2MB per year. With computer systems typically selling with 2GB of RAM as of 2008, and Moore's Law predicting current growth of 1.2GB per year, storage should not be a problem even if the block headers must be kept in memory.

But why would you want a block header with no transactions? If you wanted to, I don't know, replace the world's financial system, you would need to handle millions of transactions every 10 minutes. How big would the blocks be then? And remember that many copies of the same blockchain would need to be stored (certainly, every miner would need to store a copy). How many thousands or millions of times would that multiply things?

Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.

Turns out it was a bold assumption to think that businesses would just run their own bitcoin miners.

The proof of security (Section 11) is extremely sketchy by modern standards. (They're assuming that all attackers would follow a certain format to attack and not try something different. I get it, proper proofs of security in cryptography are very subtle and difficult.) There is also a page of fluff making random calculations with the Poisson distribution. In any case, the security of Bitcoin requires that the collective computational power of the defenders exceeds the power of any attacker (so the defenders can make new blocks faster).

Bitcoin is very strange as a cryptographic system in that the defender must have more resources than any possible attacker. In most cryptographic systems, the system should be secure even if the attacker has vastly more resources than the defender. Your phone's cryptography should be secure even if some government agency dedicated their supercomputers to try and break it. This means that Bitcoin must waste tons of energy, since that is required to maintain security. Any more energy dumped into it will only increase security and not make the actual transactions faster, which makes Bitcoin horrendously inefficient.

As a purely academic idea in cryptography, it is an interesting curiosity, but the arguments for why it's useful are sketchy. There are other such curiosities that are much more interesting, like homomorphic encryption or secure multiparty computation. It would be a nice line on a CV, but not "incredible".

The true significance of Bitcoin was the terrible libertarian economic argument for it, and the chain of events that would transform it into nothing more than a speculative fashion trend. It has nothing to do with the technical details of Bitcoin. The technical and economic arguments for Bitcoin turned out to be so weak that nowadays, the only real support for Bitcoin is that maybe you can sell it for a higher price to a greater fool.

“California is, I believe, the only state to give health insurance to people who come into the country illegally,” Kauffman said nervously. “I think we probably should not be providing that.”

“So you’d rather everyone just be sick, and get everyone else sick?” another reporter asked.

“That’s not what I’m saying,” said Kauffman.

“Isn’t that effectively what happens?” the reporter countered. “They don’t have access to health care and they just have to get sick, right?”

Kauffman contemplated that one for a moment. “Then they have to just get sick,” he said. “I mean, it’s unfortunate, but I think that it’s sort of impossible to have both liberal immigration laws and generous government benefits.”

Do I need to comment on this one?

It is how professors talk to each other in ... debate halls? What the fuck? Yud really doesn't have any clue how universities work.

I am a PhD student right now so I have a far better idea of how professors talk to each other. The way most professors (in math/CS at least) communicate in a spoken setting is through giving talks at conferences. The cool professors use chalkboards, but most people these days use slides. As it turns out, debates are really fucking stupid for scientific research for so many reasons.

1. Science assumes good faith out of everyone, and debates are needlessly adversarial. This is why everyone just presents and listens to talks.
2. Debates are actually really bad for the kind of deep analysis and thought needed to understand new research. If you want to seriously consider novel ideas, it's not so easy when you're expected to come up with a response in the next few minutes.
3. Debates generally favor people who use good rhetoric and can package their ideas more neatly, not the people who really have more interesting ideas.
4. If you want to justify a scientific claim, you do it with experiments and evidence (or a mathematical proof when applicable). What purpose does a debate serve?

I think Yud's fixation on debates and "winning" reflects what he thinks of intellectualism. For him, it is merely a means to an end. The real goal is to be superior and beat up other people.

Just had a conversation about AI where I sent a link to Eddy Burback's ChatGPT Made Me Delusional video. They clarified that no, it's only smart people who are more productive with AI since they can filter out all the bad outputs, and only dumb people would suffer all the negative effects. I don't know what to fucking say.