The way I interpret your comment is that, in the future, it will be enough to prove that someone tried to remove an LLM watermark to put them in jail.

▲

IsTom an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Imagine that somebody sold you text that they mislead you to think is not generated by AI and then trying to convince court that they didn't mislead you intentionally. If they've removed the watermark it stops this kind of defense.

▲

bsoqk an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Why not have our devices generate watermarks for everything? That way, we won’t have any kind of defence.

	▲	okanat 34 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's what is going on with images taken. iPhone and other cameras now have a per device cryptographic signature. https://c2pa.org/ Soon images taken without this signature will be unpresentable to the court.

▲

braiamp an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That's already on the books... misrepresentation of the product sold... or does the EU doesn't have that?

▲

someonebaggy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If someone causes financial loss by posting LLM text and is then found to have removed a watermark. Everything in civil law is implicitly inside a if(someone harmed && they sue you) {} block.

▲

SpicyLemonZest an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

These are corporate regulations, it's not really about putting individuals in jail. I do expect that there could be companies where trying to remove an LLM watermark is a fireable offense, especially in the EU where many kinds of decisions must be made by an accountable human being and may not be delegated to an AI system.