Could this be used to perform some sort of distillation or exploit? e.g. reminds me of the OWASP guideline on attack vectors where knowing if an ID is present or not in the database can be a form of exploit, like in password resets where they will say 'email foo@bar.com not found' rather than 'If foo@bar exists we have sent an email to foo@bar' or some other generic equivalent

droped some source files from different languages and i could process non of them

This is just C2PA for Claude-processed files, apparently. It's not related to their text watermarking.

C2PA is file metadata and can be trivially stripped away, unlike hidden watermarks, e.g. SynthID.

I think all of this it's so they don't get ai generated content in their training data

This is really fascinating. Even the AI companies have incentives to reject AI generated content. It's like they want you to use AI for everything, but they don't want AI output fed back to them.

At work, right after an AI training, we were asked to use our "authentic" voice when writing mid year reviews.

How long before they change the terms and conditions to subtly claim ownership of your files? When you write code they already insert Co author attribution/

Say I write a text by hand And then I tell it to clean up the grammar and fix some sentences Did it make it?

A watermark answers "did this model touch the file?" It doesn't answer "did a person read it and stand behind it?"

Detection will get gamed, and a lot of useful text is already mixed. The more useful check, for me, is still human: would I put my name on this before it goes out?

Claude watermarks are a farce and a waste of time. It's hilarious to me that they burn cash to even entertain the idea.

Any attempts they use are defeated by a text editor and CTRL SHIFT V. Unicode characters are no new thing.

Reminds me of how people tried to argue that NFTs aren't anything more than just jpegs.