• gwheel@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Assuming a checker tool is public it’s enough for a teacher to verify classwork, but AI providers having the sole ability to identify generated content with no way to independently verify is not a real solution.

    Plus this site advertises a tool to remove this watermarking, so it can’t be that hard to scrub out if you’re aware of it.

    • Leon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      The goal is to ensure that they don’t inbreed their models, not fix the problems they’ve caused.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        6 hours ago

        This won’t fix the inbreeding issue, anyway. The bias is extremely slight, but random, and orthogonal to Claude’s own “slop patterns” and tendencies. And theres tons of other LLM content that will end up in their dataset outside their control.

        Besides, as much as Claude accusess others of it, everyone’s training on everyone else’s output and they know it.

    • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 hours ago

      I wonder what would happen if some start to watermark document they doesn’t want in Claude training

      • turtlesareneat@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        There’s a key involved that we don’t have, so people can’t do this on their own. It’s pretty fascinating. Training models would have to be told to check for watermarks and ignore them, but yeah that would be an effective way for the providers to avoid ingesting their own AI output.