So we finally tackle the issue of ai-text pollution and probably found a way to clean up the internet (from now on), yet people start complaining that "their" output is marked as spam.

Well, the solution is quite easy: start thinking on your own again and write the lines yourself.

I welcome this watermarking. Finally it's an easy detectable signal that someone just generated some request/answer to waste my time by forcing me thinking for the other person too. Now that time is over.

(It never was hard to spot this type of texts but now there is evidence)

Will anyone even really care (outside of detecting cheaters in academia)? I see people talking about LLM based posts all the time even at work in Slack conversations where a manager verbatim pastes a clearly AI output as a response for some question and while people seem to care internally they don't actually seem to call them out.

Not sure why Anthropic is getting all the attention here. Google been doing this since at least late 2024[1] and openai I believe is doing this around 9 days ago[2].

[1]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08025-4 [2]https://help.openai.com/en/articles/8912793-provenance-signa...

So, it seems the watermark is less what it sounds like (a stamp) and more an "imperceptible statistical pattern woven into the choice of words and sentence structures." Does that mean AI responses will sound even more "AI?" Like, will it become even easier to detect on a read-through because of the word choices and patterning? I see the word "imperceptible" there, but what does this mean in this context? My non-tech brain is kinda breaking here.

This is aimed at academia with all the cheating kids and youngsters. I really dont have a big problem with it but I doubt it will be successful.

Summarising a reddit discussion counts as news nowadays?

Well, of course. The stigma surrounding AI use will only get worse with stuff like this. I'm not interested in having people single me out for using AI. So glad I switched away from Anthropic.

Amusingly, the 'histrionic' Reddit post linked to in the article smells very AI generated to me. [0]

"And it doesn't stop there. There's the power question."

So not only is the Reddit user in question writing impassioned angry screeds about being caught using AI in their work, but they are presumably asking for Claude's help in writing said prose. I wonder what that prompt looked like?

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/artificial/comments/1vlzjc8/about_t...

I understand their reasoning, but imagine at some point in the future, watermarks eventually lead to a level 9 vulnerability in your system. Theoretically, it is possible

Well, um... I fail to see how this changes anything? Give me two random pieces of text, one written by Claude, one not. I'm pretty sure I will be able to tell with close to 100% accuracy which is which, as long as as there will be a non-trivial amount of text.

Claude outputs are already very easily distinguishable. The watermark is already pretty much there, even if it's not explicitly put in the outputs.

Then a whole industry will rise at tracking and removing those watermarks.

Yet another (accidental) win for the open-weight models.