You misunderstand how Claude watermarks things.

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.

▲

basedpolymer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | 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

	▲	dgellow an hour ago \| parent [-]
		What are the valid arguments against? Is it about the fact that the output isn’t “optimal”?

▲

DanielHB 3 hours 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 3 hours 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 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Imagine telling someone they're wrong without providing any evidence or context.

	▲	dewey 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Welcome to the internet.