Or use a bunch of fonts shuffling letters. So the text on the page and ASCII text under it do not match

Otoh, how do LLM read PDFs? Text is likely to be shuffled anyway from my experience. Do they not (simply) OCR? But then the white font trick won't work.

I don't get the judge's argument,

> “What the plaintiff did here was to use that new tool in a dishonest way. A filing is a communication to both the court and the opposing party. Its integrity rests on the simple premise that what the reader sees is what the filer wrote

... but the black text is what's supposed to be read by humans.

> and that the filer refrains from transmitting, at the same time, a second and hidden message engineered to change how the filing is reviewed or potentially judged,” Spader added. “Our system rests on the premise that what is said to influence a decision is said openly, on the record, where the other side may hear it and respond.

But if the white text influences the decision, isn't that an admission of use of LLM by the judge to make the freaking decision?

I would've had more faith in the judge if he said electronic filing must be a faithful representation of the filer's argument, so no mangling like "hello world" to "old row hell", and anything otherwise (adding words in the electronic version, or making the files unreadable) is something akin to "obstruction of justice".

Which of course would have wider repercussions for people who print PDFs and rescan them without OCR because they want to e.g. obscure a politician's links to a pedophile financier...

Lo, word hell.

Anthropic (and Google) now embed information in text, via 256bit keys, word selection, or whatever. But I wonder what the potential for theoretical abuse is here. Encrypting prompt injections, for any conceivable purpose seems a lot more viable now than it once did. Got me thinking.