|
| ▲ | basedpolymer 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Most critics of watermarking have no idea how it works. Yet there are valid arguments against (and for) it, but they prefer to be misleading |
|
| ▲ | mr_mitm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| TFA is talking about C2PA, a regular signature in the meta data. A lack thereof means nothing, but if it's there, the false positive rate should be near zero. |
|
| ▲ | DanielHB an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, but I also think it will be trivially by-passable if you pass your output through another LLM. At least for text. It might help catch students cheating, but not real spam-bot usage. As soon as platforms start checking for watermarks spambots will add anti-watermark passes. |
| |
| ▲ | doc_ick an hour ago | parent [-] | | I read through their earlier announcement, i don’t think it’ll be trivially by-passable without distorting the original message. I would agree it may not help spam-bot usage, however at this case seemingly the only user detection is likely an id/badge check, which is not good. |
|
|
| ▲ | capten an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Imagine telling someone they're wrong without providing any evidence or context. |
| |
