My biggest concern is that checking any text for watermarks requires sending the entire text to Anthropic. And even that is not sufficient, as the text might have been generated with ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, Mistral, ...

So every check requires sending the text to as many AI providers as offer a watermarking detection API, almost all of which have a very dubious track history with obtaining training data through illicit means.

Any university using AI detection in their submission pipeline, or lawyers, editorialists, proofreaders that check for AI marks will be sending significant amounts of text like unpublished research, books, potentially internal documents and more, most of which is high quality human written, to dozens of AI companies, blindly trusting they won't train on any of that.

> "The exact words we choose when writing matter."

Then write your own damn text if you care about the exact wording so much

> I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

Then bad news: LLMs already use randomness in a fundamental way. Each time they go to generate a token, they first generate a probability distribution of possible tokens. Then they pick one randomly according to this distribution. The technique described can be thought of as making the random number generator pseudo random. The output it generates is one of the possible outputs it would have generated before, just now it's deterministic and will generate the same thing every time.

Crazy how a smart person like this fails to understand the gumbel softmax technique. It does not affect writing quality at all, provably. The very fact that there is generally no "best next token" with 100% certainty is precisely why the trick works (you cannot watermark a response to "respond with the To be or not to be soliloquy from the first folio Hamlet", for precisely this reason).

Gruber shows here that he really doesn’t understand the basics of how LLM text generation works. It’s weird he picked this battle about the quality of writing in LLMs. Was he planning to use LLMs to write his articles?

Well, not that weird actually. He just has a hard-on against anything that comes from the EU since Apple got in trouble. If the EU said tomorrow that they want peace in the world he’d be in Fox News the next day calling for an invasion. As a former reader of Daring Fireball, it’s just sad to see.

> My error was believing Anthropic that their system wouldn’t adulterate and corrupt the semantics of the text their models generate.

Has that ever been the case? Are they not actively tweaking their models, their fine tuning, the system prompts, the tool definitions and implementations, the guard rails, tool calls, instant responses. There are hundreds of knobs that they can change daily, or between each prompt, or even half way through a generation.

What a truly bizarre article. Arguments about pre-existing randomness, temperature and whatnot aside, I simply cannot comprehend what the author here really thinks the "best word" is. There's no such thing. We humans fall on familiar patterns of writing ourselves, so we may forego something with a flourish in favor of a more commonly-used word unless we put in effort to be "special", which should be used sparingly. That is to say, human writers are likely to choose a "worse" word in far more than the supposed 51% of cases, and that has no effect on the actual quality of writing in the end.

But even if there were such a thing as a truly "best word", for some context, what are the examples here? Mango vs pineapple? Gray vs overcast? In what case is one of these better, that AI would normally infer but would suddenly be "perverted" by SynthID? Do you think your emotional state and preferences are being evaluated if they aren't explicitly in memory? And if they are there, do you think that the generator will bypass those instructions in favor of the watermark instead of placing it somewhere you won't care? I just. Genuinely don't get it. There may be words that matter in specific contexts or to you as a reader, so you should bloody well put them there.

What a bunch of entitled whining. How is the system to know that it's just a private conversation that won't be used in some fraudulent way? Abuse is currently rampant, yes please let's find a way to mark LLM output. The thing I'm worried about is giving the providers the power to claim provenance. Even ignoring the privacy issues, the operational hassle of having to check N providers makes these approaches at best limited. I want to see research into providing a shared public or ideally self-hostable oracle that uses some standardized method for watermark detection. Similar to asymmetric crypto where users can't reasonably find out the secret part but can do something useful with it nonetheless.

>I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

Does the author think he is currently getting T=0 output from Claude? Is he under the impression that T=0 produces the "best" writing?

This entire article just seems so detached from the basics of how LLMs work.

Translation: No one can ever again use Claude for proofreading their own prose unless they’re willing to risk that the whole thing might be flagged as having been generated by Claude.

I think that was intended, yes.

> One of my fundamental problem with this is that no two synonyms carry the exact same meaning. “He leaped at the chance” and “He jumped at the opportunity” are very similar sentences expressing the same general sentiment, but they are not the same. The exact words we choose when writing matter.

Then why are you using an LLM to write? They're not capable of understanding such nuance. They do pick randomly between two synonymous phrases, they do not use some super smart algorithm to pick the one that sounds the best.

This excuse doesn't hold any water at all - Occam's razor says the author is just super annoyed that his AI writing will be identifiable as AI writing.

This seems like a non-issue, or maybe I have the wrong expectations about writing. You write a text, ask Claude to proof-read it, but then you wholesale just copy Claudes output and use that as the final text? Wouldn't you review the changes it suggests and only take those you agree with, there by completely bypassing the watermarking?

Alternatively, you ask Claude to write the whole thing and proof read it yourself. In that case I'd like to know how much you'd need to change to break the watermarking, i.e. how much of a text would you need to change for it to be considered your work and not that of Claude?

This article feels slightly incoherent. You want high quality precise writing and to use an LLM to generate it? Feels like those are diametrically opposed

I was initially surprised that Gruber was so invested in the "quality" of AI-generated text, which in my mind is an oxymoron. But really, Gruber's interest here is with the EU. This forms part of his ongoing attacks on the EU, all because they have been forcing Apple to align with regulations.

Gruber was a good voice in the industry but this article misses the mark in a lot of ways.

A company the size of Anthropic would not voluntarily jeopardize their massive valuation if they didn’t feel the resulting output would maintain a similar level of quality as before. Is there a similar worry that their system prompt, which is injected at the start of every conversation also influences token generation in an artificial way?

If regulation will ruin Claude as a product, market forces will fill the void. There are also a ton of open weight models to choose from. It’s going to be okay.

I commented it last time the post about Claude watermarking went viral and I'm going to say the same thing again:

"I've been working in the media and model IP space for quite many years. What this article misses a bit is the threat model for watermarking in general. Watermarking and fingerprinting have inherently weak security guarantees -- they rely a lot on security through obscurity, weak assumed adversaries to deliver. There are clear trade offs between true positives, false positives and maintaining the quality of the media. It's true for audio-visual media, models and their outputs alike. As much as I like to take shots at poor technical choices by corps and govs, this one is unjustified. Sure, inserting glyphs is bad but biased sampling is as good as it gets in 2026."

Since the announcement, there have been many people who don't seem to fully understand what a security guarantee is, what trade offs it might involve, or how popular the type of technological solution is in general (media watermarking is ubiquitous).

And naturally, there are challenges with how you will make sense of the score in your org, e.g. you wrote an email, and it's flagged as LLM-generated because you copied two generated/edited paragraphs.

Yeah, the article might disagree with watermarking as a matter of principle, comparing it to censorship. But the methodological arguments that I have read so far have been thin in these articles.

LLM inference already isn't deterministic, the watermarking technique only limits the space of possible random seeds. There is no reason to believe that this subset of seeds somehow produces lower quality output.

>in areas where there is an arbitrary choice between particular words or terms within the code, the watermark can be used, such as comments within code.

I wonder if this is why Opus 5 keeps writing excessively long comments, even though I keep instructing it not to (both in chat, CLAUDE.md, and in its memories)

LLMs are already perversions of writing, so what else is new. Oh no, the over-long circumlocution generated by three autocorrects in a trenchcoat might be slightly longer because of this and maybe people will start noticing the subtle rhythms of vaguely peculiar word choices as yet another cue that you are wasting their time with machine-generated wordslop, what a terrible fate. Your long rambling walls of machine-waffling might be 37.05% longer than they need to be instead of the mere 36.58% longer they are now.

This is not meant to be snarky, But almost any writing done by Claude is a perversion of writing.

I honestly can't stand the way Claude writes. This watermark change just makes it scarier.

There is no very best token to choose at each decision point. It is context dependent and subjective.

> But only Anthropic will be able to determine if text was seemingly generated by Claude, and Anthropic will only be able to detect the watermarks that are applied by Claude. Claude can’t detect the hidden watermark signals generated by, say, Gemini, and Gemini can’t detect the hidden watermark signals created by Claude, because each implementation is predicated on secret keys held only by the LLM provider

Well, akshwally...

> Interoperability. Providers must implement an interoperability solution for watermark detection such as a standardized API access method, a publicly readable signpost mechanism embedded in content, or participation in a consortium detection solution by February 2, 2027

The issue here isn't (just) adulteration, it's that watermarking in general is unworkable.

If all the providers use watermarking systems with different shifting logit weightings, and the keys are secret, you have to check every provider to see if it produced a given text.

Which is clearly ridiculous.

And if all providers collaborate and use the same weightings, or if the weightings are constant and not rotated cryptographically, a generic watermark remover becomes trivial.

That's not even getting into the legal complexities of businesses running open source models without watermarking locally.

If we wish to use “the very best, most precise words at every single decision point” then I will note that “writing” is not the best word for what LLMs are doing. A more precise synonym might be “generating”, in which case this essay becomes “Watermarking is a perversion of text generation” - which is true, albeit somewhat trivial.

I think we will see a hidden motivation behind this as ultimately so the output can have an author, the author can be attributed and finally the output will be copyrighted and so the LLM has more value.

Everyone who invests in AI companies wants to see the value of their investment increase.

I'd give it about 3-5 years until an AI company claims copyright over code their LLM produces. This is a crucial step in that path.

It seems fine. I use an LLM to argue with me prior to posting blog posts so that I don't post obvious incorrectness, but the UX element to it is that it constructs notes about various sections of the text and we talk about those. There's no way for the generated text to enter the blog unless I copy-paste it and I'm not going to do that because the entire point is for me to write it.

At the point that you're generating entire volumes of text from Claude you're not really trying to be a sophisticated writer. I don't see how it's going to hurt for it to choose random related words.

it serves to show just how little regard the people behind these generated-text fingerprinting schemes have for the actual craft of writing.

LLMs have never been the place I've thought to expect any commitment to the craft of writing, to be fair.

I wonder if this watermarking system to lead to an increase in tortured phrases, believed to be caused by plagiarism evasion tools that change random words to applicable synonyms.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.06751

Are there some narrow cases (like in outputting the input almost verbatim) where the probability for every best token is always much higher than second best, and in those cases would there be no watermark?

The fact that Gruber points to a "must-read" article about how the watermarking works, which, in turn, was very obviously entirely LLM-generated, says a lot about his lack of experience reading LLM output.

If Gruber can't tell a fully AI-generated article from a human-written one, perhaps he shouldn't care so much.

NB: I was told yesterday it's apparently a meme to call out Claude-generated output, but here I am, as I believe it's quite relevant to the topic at hand.

> I chose to depend on a private company to express my own thoughts and now I'm mad that I'm not in control of the output

Who could have seen this coming???

I think writing is the killer use case for local LLMs.

We've had so many advancements in LLM samplers for improved text generation (off the top of my head: min-P, adaptive-P, XTC, DRY, p-less, Top-H, Top-n-Sigma, and so many more) but hosted LLM APIs only provide three basic knobs: temperature, top-k and top-p which are old as the mountains in LLM years at this point.

One thing that doesn't help the local LLM case is that all the popular VC backed local LLM wrappers also only support the same three ancient knobs because I suppose they're more preoccupied with their next fundraise than with keeping up with the advances in tech.

Gruber has a ridiculous knee-jerk response to anything the EU does, so hardly a surprise he didn't come to the table with a sober facts-based response.

> The provider must mandate in their terms-of-service that users not remove the watermarking.

So, you don't own the generated text, and can't use it freely then. What if I copy paste a section, or rewrite a section of text to my liking? What if I rewrite some lines of code that contains the mark?

Security theater, and vague enough to be used as a weapon against who the government wishes.

I hope it's left off for non-EU customers.

LLM output, as the author acknowledges here, is already non-deterministic. Next token probabilities are set, and tokens are chosen pseudo-randomly. As I understand it, this watermark is just going to be a matter of using a known seed and algorithm to make those pseudo-random choices, such that a signature can be detected. The important thing is, it's not replacing intentional choices with random ones, it's just generating pseudo-random results differently. Quality shouldn't be affected.

Claude's writing was already easy to recognize. The fact that Anthropic complied without complaint makes me wonder if they already watermark their outputs and used the opportunity to create goodwill. Presumably they want to avoid training their new model on text generated by the previous model, so they have reasons to be able to recognize AI-generated text.

> Someone with the secret key can determine which list a word will be on at each token generation point (which is how the watermarking is detected); those without the secret key cannot.

How is this supposed to work in an actual lawsuit? Will Anthropic offer some sort of tool / (paid?) webservice to check for watermarks using that "secret key", and a judge is supposed to just believe whatever that tool's verdict is? And then it takes the EU another 20 years to understand what a silly idea this was?

I often agree with John Gruber, but I think he’s lost the plot with this one.

The thing I don’t understand is why he seems to care so damned much about this subject--enough to write over 4,500 words on it!

John writes for a living. That’s his profession. He’s been writing for over 25 years now. When you’re that good at writing, and you care this much about your writing, you don’t allow an LLM to take over your job. I just can’t imagine that he’s in the market for LLMs and that literary excellence is his number one selection criterion.

So why is he so livid about it? It’s like being angry that wine is going to start coming in smaller bottles even though you don’t drink wine.

Even if he’s angry on behalf of other people, I don’t get it either. In my view, having LLMs write publishable content on your behalf is not a socially-acceptable use case, nor a professionally-acceptable one in most professions, even though people are abusing it for this purpose anyway. And besides, the models aren’t even all that good at it today. If you agree with that, then you certainly should not care if it’s using different phrasing than you otherwise might prefer if the meaning is similar enough.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps his hatred of EU technology regulation (which, admittedly, is mostly pretty dumb and is mainly just making life worse for users) is getting the better of him.

> I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

Try running an llm like qwen 3.8 27B in Q8 locally with an intentionally very low temperature setting, it will write like a caveman crossed with a robot. You may find that an extremely literal output does not look pleasant to read for humans.

Heck. The entire process itself of LLM text generation is a perversion of writing.-

Further heck: It can be said it ain't even writing.-

The main reason we don't see much quality degradation in LLM writing output is because they're already poor writers. This is the load bearing reason.

I was bulding a small interpreter and writing an article in ~markdown yesterday with Fable. And while it codes like a pro, it writes like a sixth grader.

Let's see how these watermarking stats hold up if/when llms start writing well.

Watermarking will be one more nail in the coffin of proprietary models if the world is so fortunate.

Reminds me of printer tracking dots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_tracking_dots

Just copy Claude’s output and shove it into Gemini and ask to rephrase.

"possibly build tools to take a chunk of writing and try to remove your fingerprint from it, i.e, protect anonymity,"

The standard procedure to do this, is to chain translations to other languages and back. The message remains, but the wording will pick up some noise. --Dec 30, 2008.

There are many reasons to hate this watermarking but affecting the output quality isn’t one of them. The central argument he’s making is wrong. Switching out one RNG for another doesn’t make the results worse.

There is no coherent position in which the watermarking is a perversion of writing but AI writing as a whole is not a worse one.

Lots of faux outrage, rambling and hyperbole here from Gruber.

“Absurdly and insultingly”? Come on…

I dont see how there would be remotely enough entropy in most model outputs for this to be close to feasible with any kind of accuracy.

Either they false positve on pretty much everything ever written, or the chances of catching a true positive is so low as to be useless.

Basically Cinavia for text, and that often falls over and is easy to remove even when there is megabytes of data streaming over a long period of time rather than 2 or 3 bits per wall of text, let alone what most people use claude for, when there is a strict dictionary and other tight output constraints.

Then then don’t use Claude ? What’s wrong with all these people getting vendor locked in.

I guess I understand the complaint, but LLMs are already crap at writing, IMNSHO. And, yes, maybe this will make them marginally more crap, but in my mind we're talking the difference between a 30% grade and a 29%.

Some here are arguing that mechanisms used by LLM providers already derail the goal of "the very best, most precise words at every single decision point", therefore the author is misguided.

The author has expressed a preference. Assume that there is a sequence of tokens, such that it is considered the absolute best by the author. This particular method of watermarking makes it less likely to generate that sequence, by definition.

I feel their argument would have been clearer and stronger if they had spent more time exploring the alternatives, and whether these alternatives would be just as effective. It is trivially easy to remove invisible tokens.

Like it or not, there is a public good to being able to identify AI generated content, and a small degredation in quality is tolerable in my opinion.

I don't think anybody has to worry about this issue though. Manual writing, coding, and proof reading continues to be an option. Where AI output is nothing to be ashamed of, the tools are available. For everyone else, there will be LLM providers that ignore EU law.

I needed another reason to cancel my Claude sub. Thanks Anthropic!

This is akin to adding a giant watermark on things one would made with a free product "Made with XXX". Except you're paying $200/month for it, and there's no way to disable that watermark.

I don't disagree with EU regulations, but I strongly believe the onus should be on the content publisher, not the toolmaker. If the toolmaker watermarks whatever his tool produces, it opens a giant can of worms that cannot be closed. That means anything and everything you make with this tool is no longer fully yours, it contaminates everything and makes your work traceable. Who wants that?

I was already annoyed by the fact that Claude marked everything it did on my repos under its own account (I didn't ask for any of this), but now everything is invisibly marked, even the code. Not that I care that my writing would be watermarked, since I'd rather write my stuff myself, but code? No thanks.

Meanwhile I'm running a DeepSeek V4 Flash or Pro, or a Qwen3.8, and it writes my code without a peep. Resulting repos are clean, just the way I want them. No 'Claude' account, no watermarking, nothing. I won't be looking back after having tried these new models. Whoever makes good models that don't broadcast their maker will get my business.

This watermarking will simply push people more towards Chinese models. Keep pushing in the wrong direction Anthropic. Doing this right before an IPO is a great idea.

This is moronic. This is like being mad that the slot machine you think is lucky is occupied.

People are very upset, especially in the arts, that Anthropic is changing the text to watermark it, but isn't that missing the point a little bit? They're not changing _your_ text whose every word you've carefully chosen for the exact effect, they're changing text that they're generating, i.e. text you've already chosen to give up control over. LLMs can't understand emotional nuance anyway.

The phrasing of the announcement implying that phrasing and diction don't change the meaning of text is insultingly dismissive of the whole field of literature, and I can see why people might take it as an afront, but the actual technology shouldn't have a negative impact as far as I can see. It seems to me that this one is more of a PR problem than something with real-world impact.

It's good to be the King.

And what I mean by that is that companies that are at the top tend to make anti customer decisions because they have lost the concept that pleasing customers matters as priority one.

This is the yet another embarrassing idea from the EU they came up with, if they could focus less on dumb things and more on providing real support to the development of technology maybe we could have more healthy competition that will eventually lead to better overall technology in the hands of everyone instead of acting like dumb chickens and not just being passively useless but also stopping the real labs from doing the real work into doing this bs

Watermarks are garbage because they may embed account id, IP address and deanonimize you. That's why we should be using open-weights LLM whenever possible.

I think it's pretty dishonest of Anthropic to frame their watermark as EU regulation compliance. The EU regulation, from my understanding, requires AI content to be labeled for human viewers. In the meanwhile the Anthropic new release on the watermark says this.

> The difference between watermarked and un-watermarked text will not be distinguishable to readers

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-text-watermark

Which is to say, it does not actually meet the EU AI act requirements which require transparency to humans. Not to mention that if the detection requires access to the base models, it makes anthropic the only entity who gets the say on if a piece of text comes out of Claude. Anthropic is both the player and the referee here.

If there is one takeaway you should have from this fiasco it is that you should be wary of using tools that doesn't serve your needs and your needs only.

I don’t understand how this works for anything but prose. Is that the point? In any code or structured output, there just isn’t the flexibility, and depending on how the user requests the output be constrained there is even less (“answer only True or False”). So is it just chat responses? If I ask the API to tell me a story about Alice and Bob then it watermarks it, but when I ask it some implausibly constrained thing like write a story about Alice and Bob with each word starting in rotation with the letters alicebob, does it try to do so and hope there are roughly équiprobable tokens regularly?

The author makes a lot of great points. I find it surprising that somebody who has such a nuanced appreciation for the subtleties of language would be in the crowd complaining about the watermarking policy. I expected this kind of complaints from mostly students interested in academic dishonesty, who generally don't have enough command over written language to notice the slight decrease in output quality.

Great, now Claude will sound even more generic. It’s not only annoying - it’s also dumb. We are all correct to push back on this load-bearing issue

I'd encourage reading this paper, and literature on scaling laws in autoregressive models: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11156

Total variation distance has been measured to decrease as you scale a model, and that is the primary mechanism "watermarking" as discussed in the Anthropic announcement relies on. It becomes more difficult to reliably detect text as a fixed sample count without tweaking the distribution further. Either way, it's a minor problem that will be addressed over time, compared to the issue of who can detect this without guessing or developing their own sets: providers not releasing a way to detect any such watermarks without going through them makes this entire approach hostile to the public. The EU regulation on this subject is interesting, although again most certainly not the primary driver for these practices:

"1.1.2: Signatories will ensure that AI-generated or manipulated content is marked with an imperceptible watermark, with the exception of very short text. For free-form text longer than 200 tokens, watermarking still needs to be applied, even though it may have lower reliability compared to that of watermarking very long text"

A proper, effective and useful law would have required providers to regularly release datasets to run your own verification on any text released within a fixed interval of time, presumably once out of rotation. Instead, it only talks about exposing an user interface going through their own services:

"Signatories will ensure access to their detection solution through a user interface appropriate for the audience of end-users that may eventually be exposed to the content generated or manipulated by their AI system. [...] Any restriction to the access will be limited in time until more reliable and robust detection mechanisms have emerged and have been adopted as the state of the art for detection mechanisms for the watermarking of free-form text evolves."

Most interestingly, in line with the EU's mass-surveillance program, an alternative solution to watermarking where it may not be sufficient is also suggested, although only optional for now:

"Where appropriate and taking into account potential trade-offs related to privacy and security, as well as scalability challenges and costs, Signatories may implement as an optional supplementary measure fingerprinting or logging solutions for AI-generated or manipulated content which allow for checking whether content has been generated or manipulated by their AI system. For example, direct logging may be appropriate for text content, whereas fingerprinting approaches may be preferable for audio and visual content."

I will be happy to move off Anthropic given the chance. They are burning all of their good will.

The same absolute morons who gave us cookie consent strike again.

I swear, one of those days I will get into politics just to fight those two things, and the cottage industry of batshit crazy lawyers that gave birth to those things.

Not telling someone you used AI is a perversion of writing. Also agree that an AI proofreader should not claim authorship, but in most other cases, the AI is not reading your mind, it's only watermarking its own usage, and we kind of need more of that.

Reminder: your favorite distilled model does not treat you, the customer, as an adversary and mess with your output.... May the free market win.

Wow, never has a single article revealed the incompetency of a tech writer.

gruber is really out of his element with ai commentary, I fully support the general skepticism but he's seemingly arguing against something he doesn't quite grasp

The objection seems to be that Claude will always write worse prose than a human writer, even if the writing Claude generates is understandable.

Yeah, John. We're all OK with that.

... If watermarking is a perversion of writing, what does that make 'writing' with an LLM?

Related:

How Claude's text watermarking works

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49303350

I'll be honest, who fucking cares? Why would you use AI to write for you and then complain that people know AI wrote the code?? If you know people wouldn't like it, why even try!?

> the only acceptable answer for why an LLM should choose bananas instead of pineapple (or coconut, or guava, or papaya...) is that it has determined that it’s the best fit for the intended meaning, tone, and sentiment of the text.

It already fails. It randomly picks between close candidates. To help fool people into believing in intelligence claim, I guess.

Now for the human generated watermark. Timez to addd the speelling mistakes, decreaze the usegage of big words and proper gramicaly usuage. Wish I was joking.

I keep seeing an irritating misconception in this space, which is that the alternatives chosen by these algorithms are supposed to mean the same things as what they're displacing. That's not true, and not how LLM generation works. Complaints that two different choices don't mean the same thing miss the entire point.

"Anthropic's . . . Claude is a Perversion of Writing."

FITFY.

I have no sympathy for writers whining about what the AI is doing to 'their' writing. It's only your writing when you write it. There's any easy way to avoid this: don't fucking use it. Use you own brain.

If precise word choice and nuanced phrasing are the core priorities, handing off the writing process to an autoregressive model in the first place defeats the purpose. Using LLMs as a sounding board or for structural review avoids watermark exposure entirely, it only becomes detectable when someone is copying wholesale blocks of model-generated text.

The interesting part is that the detector doesn't need to identify a specific token choice. It can look for a small statistical skew across many choices. That also explains why the approach is fundamentally probabilistic: paraphrasing, translation, or human editing can dilute the signal without necessarily removing every trace of it.

The objection isn’t that normal sampling is somehow pure. It’s that watermarking uses token choice to carry an additional, covert signal. The quality cost may be small on average, but it is still an optimization constraint unrelated to meaning or style—and it turns ordinary prose into provenance metadata. The more serious questions are detection reliability, false positives, and what happens after human editing. https://prachub.com/

> because the nature of the watermarking algorithm requires it to sometimes increase the probability of selecting a worse word choice and decrease the probability of selecting the model’s best choice.

... and the opposite is also true, sometimes it will increase the probability of choosing the "best" word choice. So watermarking makes the LLM quality better then? /s

> My initial speculation was that maybe they’d hide invisible non-printing Unicode characters in the text.

Or just em dashes? /s

Anthropic should just pull out of the EU at this point. Europeans who really want to use it can VPN, and if they did they wouldn’t be able to hide behind their various comical tech laws.

Nanny state nonsense indeed.

As a non American/non European resident all I see from the Europeans are 0 contributions to software progress at any large scale while they surely do a lot of crying and huffing and puffing and demanding. Lots of complaining and rule making but not a lot of creating is a bad look.

What is even the point of watermarking AI slop supposed to be? All it does is provide people with the false implication that anything which is not watermarked must not be AI-generated.

I struggle to see how this could possibly be useful unless there's some sort of psy-op going on to trick people into uncritically accepting anything lacking a watermark as not being AI-generated.

This (Anthropic's "watermark" stance, I mean) is so fundamentally ludicrous that I have assumed it is a (wholly insincere, but arguably pragmatic, at least from their perspective) attempt to deal with the EU and their latest misguided, ham-fisted attempt to solve a real-world problem by drenching the entire world with more regulatory slop[1].

The "watermark" can be trivially defeated, but may be enough to satisfy the letter of the law, and like many people here, I would argue that if you are letting Claude write for you, you've already accepted getting the literary equivalent of turd soup, so the harm is — or at least could be — fairly minuscule.

[1]: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/code-pract...

(FWIW I have a more favorable view than most people seem to of the EU's efforts to at least try tackle problems like this — but predictably, the bureaucratic "solutions" they come up with don't work, but do make things objectively worse)

Respectfully, you are all missing the point.

Watermarking is bad not just because of the principled stance that your tool should not be working against your own interests (the passionate argument in TFA), but specifically because it lends credence to the idea that AI detection is a valid and possible thing to do perfectly.

As technologists of course we know "oh well yes but with some confidence interval we can detect AI token bias across a large corpus of text." To JimBob in charge of publishing your paper or reviewing your PhD submission, all he knows is "anthropic says AI detection is possible so this 30% chance your paper was written by AI means you've plagiarized." Do you really think you're winning the argument with the certified, law-approved plagiarism detection machine? No, you're not, and your career is over.

It's irresponsible to develop watermarking because it is not anywhere close to a perfect science, but it will be treated like one by people with the power to ruin your lives. Even if you've never touched AI in your life, your paper is going through the "maybe it says you cheated" box, and you better hope those dice don't come up snake eyes.

tl;dr:

> It’s unacceptable for a tool to sacrifice an iota of clarity, coherence, meaning, quality, etc. for the purpose of (watermarking)

And an example of the impact of watermarking on word choice [0]:

> The results of the study were quite [important || significant || substantial || notable]

The meaning of the sentence to changes slightly even in just this tiny example. Imagine the degradation when applied across an entire response!

[0] https://declaude.org/watermarking/

I recently found there was no website covering a historical subject, with sites begging to be visited. The information was scattered and not presented in the form people would find most useful (a map).

A couple of days later it was up with the most comprehensive review of the available info summarised and referenced ready for a human researcher to explore.

This was only possible due to AI. It would have taken me weeks to chase it down and summarise it, so it would never have happened. Let's get off our high horse about AI writing.