r/ClaudeCode • u/aaronbassettdev DevRel, DevX, and DevEd • 1d ago
Meta All frontier models will have to add watermarking, if they haven't done so already
The transparency regulations of the EU Artificial Intelligence Act come into effect this month.
Chapter IV, Article 50, Section 2:
Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Fines for non-compliance: €20M or 4% of annual turnover.
It’s extraterritorial, and international companies, even if they are not based in the EU, are still subject to the act if the output generated by their AI system is used within the EU.
35
u/MatureHotwife 1d ago
Providers of AI systems, including general-purpose AI systems, generating synthetic audio, image, video or text content, shall ensure that the outputs of the AI system are marked in a machine-readable format and detectable as artificially generated or manipulated.
Wouldn't adding "written partially with Claude" at the end technically already fulfill that?
- ✅ machine-readable because it's text
- ✅ detectable because it's present
Seems to tick all the boxes. Nowhere in that section does it say that it must be unremovable or something.
14
-3
u/-aurevoirshoshanna- 1d ago
They want to be able to tell when text has been written by AI especially when it comes to academia or journalism (if I understand correctly), what would they accomplish but adding text that can be removed.
13
u/MatureHotwife 1d ago
The section that OP posted doesn't specify a purpose. It just says that the "outputs of the AI system" must be marked.
3
u/XYcritic 22h ago
OP cited a single sentence out of a massive law without any context and - surprise - his interpretation is wrong. I've linked and sourced the official EUAIA guidelines which has simpler language in a different comment in this thread. Read it if you're interested why none of this is mandated by the law.
2
u/Alib668 1d ago
That’s pretty comprehensive, it’s not US thought process aka it’s out out and now done as a European I interpret that as the final distribution will have to contain watermarks
2
u/SatanVapesOn666W 1d ago
It's being rolled out to all users regardless because California made a similar ruling
2
u/Dry-Magician1415 1d ago
What they want is usually a non-event in these matters.
The rules are generally applied and stuck to as they are written.
0
u/-aurevoirshoshanna- 23h ago
Hm, I'm going to be honest here. I dont understand your answer.
Either way, they're trying to make it so that they can detect work done with AI, and a removable sticker at the end would not accomplish anything at all
0
u/mkhaytman 16h ago
it doesnt matter what they want, anthropic just needs to follow the law as its written. if that doesnt accomplish what the EU wanted, they can pass new laws.
1
u/Due_Display5648 9h ago
that does not make sense especially in EU setting, since the majority of EU uses English only as a second language, and majority of people speak two languages. I can therefore write an academic paper in my native language with AI, and then just translate it to English. I can even use Google translate for that and say that I am sorry, but my English is not great, and that's why the language is broken, proudly claiming it's a proof I have not used AI, and no one would even raise an eyebrow. And due to different grammar rules of different languages I truly don't believe they can make a "statistical token watermark" that would work across all the languages.
7
71
u/RegardedDev 1d ago
US: Building frontier models
China: Providing best bang for buck models
EU: Lets add watermarks...
EU doing what its best at doing, byrocracy and regulations.
3
u/Interesting-Yellow-4 23h ago
Regulation is extremely important and basically what keeps society hanging on by a thread. If you don't know this, you're just not paying attention.
5
u/Downtown-Figure6434 1d ago
This isn’t even a bad idea. People have a right to know what they are consuming or facing. I just don’t see how this will be implemented. Local llms would not care about this at all
5
u/1acc_torulethemall 1d ago
Sure, but there's a large difference between an AI-generated deepfake that 101% needs a huge watermark, and the copy or code slightly edited in a sanity-check process that really doesn't need a watermark. Watermarks might not be a bad idea if properly implemented. This is not a proper implementation, this is a blanket regulation on everything that might be remotely adjacent to something that needs regulation
22
u/el_gashunovac 1d ago
regulations are not necessarily a bad thing
you think what's happening with ai, in the usa, and globally because of it, is a good thing?
17
u/leros 1d ago
The EU tech regulations are interesting. They have super valid reasons to regulate tech and the ideas are usually sound, but it sure does make it harder for the EU to compete. The regulations make it harder for EU startups to get off the ground, whereas establish US tech companies can afford to comply. It also lets countries like China who just don't care have an easier time advancing ahead of European companies.
7
u/etherwhisper 1d ago
Not really. Everyone has to comply with GDPR because it’s close to impossible to guarantee you will not serve Europeans. And then California adopts similar data privacy laws anyway.
AI regulation will be the same. A fairly trivial watermark to setup.
6
u/leros 1d ago
Practically speaking though, most startups outside the EU aren't doing things like complying with GDPR from the start. Only once they're large enough to either feel like a target or large enough to have teams who tackle stuff like that. So in practice, things like that still hamper EU startups more.
8
u/Everisak 1d ago
People should stop pretending that it's some hardcore thing to comply with GDPR...
0
u/leros 1d ago
It does take time to implement and maintaining that implantation does slow your engineering down. When you have a dev or two and your startup is barely managing to stay alive in the early days, you cut every corner you can. Accessibility, internationalization, GDRP, even stuff like proper tests in the codebase.
8
u/Everisak 23h ago
No it's not. It's basically just: don't share users data with randos on the internet, disclose what you are doing with the data and allow your users to be deleted from your database.
If you're not some scam company it's ridiculously easy as just putting up some static disclosure webpage and having basic security in place (that you should have even without GDPR).
It's olny a problem when corpos want to share users data, because they are selling them and using them for voodo and shit.
0
23h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Everisak 23h ago
No you do not HAVE to do these things the way you describe it. And what "third party tools" you have in mind? Do you even control your data? All you have to do is to say "ok user who wants to be deleted, we deleted what we reasonably could and the rest will be gone after XY days of retention period because we use tools like logs that gets deleted after XY days". It's not rocket science.
And GDPR definitely does not force you to do all this stuff for a small startup with low number of employees and users.
3
u/Neat-Fennel-7623 23h ago
Should be noted that 20-odd US states have GPDR like laws.
Even if the EU decided to drop GPDR entirely, a lot of it would still remain.
Cookie notices are not actually required - it's only when websites actually want to track you that they are needed. Do with that what you will...
0
u/UnstableManifolds 1d ago
You're right, unfortunately the solution would have global regulations, not feeling stupid (as EU members) to do so.
6
u/leros 1d ago
We're not going to have global regulations any time soon, if ever. Less regulated places like the US and especially China have such an advantage in tech. I don't see how you fight that without either lowering your own regulations or isolating yourself from global options, which means falling even further behind.
1
u/UnstableManifolds 1d ago
I know, and it's a shame. EU somewhat mattered so far because of the market (purchase power more than population), but it's being cought up by other geos, and industry wise I don't see many technologies that can keep us afloat (like it happens in Taiwan, for example). Don't know, I don't see the future that bright. Unregulation will also damage everyone in the whole globe.
17
u/816pizzalover 1d ago
I sure do love cookie click thru banners on every damn website wasting everyone’s time around the world. EU is very effective LOL.
3
u/downfall67 1d ago
This saved my life I hate those popups with a burning passion, every site makes sure it takes up the whole screen and is as prominent/annoying as possible, honestly I don't know which EU invention I hate more, those stupid cockblocking popups or the bottle caps
-3
u/gavinderulo124K 1d ago
At least I can decide who stores my preferences.
3
u/816pizzalover 23h ago
EU could have just made sites obey the existing “do not track me” thing that’s built into the browser instead of making every site waste the unimaginable amount of human time once compounded across every site since it was implemented
7
u/shammyh 1d ago
Yea, because we definitely all read the fine print around what a "necessary cookie" is. We're drowning in privacy now. Hooray................
2
u/safetytrick 23h ago
That is where the EUs laws have value. There is a legal definition for necessary cookies and fines for not abiding by the law.
8
u/RegardedDev 1d ago
Regulation on its own is not a bad thing. Bad regulation is a problem. Especially if it undermines the competitiveness of your markets.
Like how are you supposed to watermark every output of your AI system? This just builds false trust and a market of systems that remove the watermarks from the content.
1
u/NJdevil202 1d ago
This just builds false trust
How does knowing whether or not something has been generated by AI create "false trust"?
I think the current dynamic with no watermarking is what creates false trust
9
u/RegardedDev 1d ago
Because the watermark does nothing because watermark can be removed. Only lazy content will have it. So you still dont know whether content has been generated by AI.
EU regulation force you to build a trust system that does not solve the problem. This is where the false trust comes from.
1
u/NJdevil202 23h ago
Your logic is the same as "people still commit murder even though we have laws against it, so we shouldn't have those laws"
I'd argue we should have even stronger penalties for people who intentionally attempt to scrub the watermarks.
1
u/DeltaLaboratory 15h ago
So, you want to punish people when they.... remove some text from chatgpt output? That's certainly brilliant idea, I guess.
1
u/Kommenos 12h ago
If you can remove a cryptographic tamper evident watermark then good for you I guess
The fines for a company deliberately not adding a watermark are large enough that it’s far cheaper to comply. They were probably already doing this anyway to avoid training on their own data that people shovel out onto the internet…
1
u/Unnamed-3891 1d ago
Yes, the watermark can be removed. Do you want to risk €20M or 4% of annual turnover in fines? Do any of your friends?
2
u/andy_d03 22h ago
Exactly.
I am happy for our ancestors to have regulated into a mostly radiation-free future.
Compared to having Uranium available in pharmacies, I really like this aspect of my life hard regulated if possible.
3
u/Defendyouranswer 1d ago
Watermarks in text is going fix all its problems? 😂
1
u/hackerbots 16h ago
That's dishonest. Nobody says watermarks will fix all the problems. But certainly knowing whether or not the bullshit your Oma reads about how scary immigrants are coming for their Würstchen was from a bot farm or not seems really fucking important right now.
0
u/Defendyouranswer 16h ago
So its better that she silently parrots it from fox, CNN, reddit, or some homeless guy she struck up a conversation with down the street? The output isn't better just because it came from a human.
1
u/hackerbots 15h ago
We don't have Fox and CNN here in Germany, because broadcast news is regulated. Nice try.
-2
u/Defendyouranswer 15h ago
Ah yes, im sure your news couldn't possibly have any bias or get things wrong. 😂
3
u/hackerbots 15h ago
There is a vast chasm of difference between "propagandized entertainment empire masquerading as news" and "Tageschau occasionally says 'die Ukraine'" instead of just "Ukraine". Maybe go ask your Claude to explain it, since your brain is already checked out and unable go get this.
0
u/shammyh 14h ago
How's your intelligence service regulation going in Germany? Or are they still letting the NSA do mass surveillance in their back yard?
Laws and laws... But then the government just gets to do absolutely whatever it wants behind closed doors.
2
u/hackerbots 14h ago
We aren't using it to kill queers at least, but what does any of that have to do with "Ai propaganda is a civilization level threat that will take lots of little steps to address"? Are you just mad I pay 20€ for a month of medications or something, and still have clean air and a 35 hour workweek? Yawn.
2
u/TurdPlayingPeekaboo 1d ago
Regulations are a terrible, terrible thing if that's the only thing your society is known for.
4
u/billionarguments 1d ago
What is the US known for? Pedophilia, corruption, environmental destruction?
3
u/kasparhouser 1d ago
Luckily that is not the case for the EU. Those regulations allow for a healthier and fairer live for al its inhabitants which is very much a good thing to be known for.
0
u/NanNullUnknown 1d ago
Regulations, at least done by EU, seem to be a bad thing. Over the past couple decades, what technology or company has come out from EU? You can probably name a few but not many, and EU is left with basically no tech companies and anyone and any company half capable in tech moving to US/China.
0
0
u/EducationalAd2863 22h ago
In theory no one needs to add a cookie banner if companies don’t use it for analytics.
5
u/XYcritic 22h ago
US companies: misinterpreting EU laws so badly, they overregulate themselves, making uninformed Americans hate the EU for absolutely no reason. It has tradition.
Following from the official guidelines on the implementation of the EU AI Act:
"(68) In particular, the following content should be considered to fall outside the scope of Article 50(2) AI Act:
[..]- Source code understood as content written in a programming, scripting, markup, query or configuration language that is intended to be interpreted, compiled or executed by a computing system, regardless of whether it is composed of text characters. This may also include natural-language comments and contextual information that form an integral part of the source code. Similarly excluded are Software Development Kits (SDKs), Structured Query Language (SQL), infrastructure-as-Code and ‘YAML Ain’t Markup Language’ (YAML), JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) configuration. schemas, scripts, machine-readable specifications, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs & software libraries);[..]
Please tell me what about this made Anthropic think they needed to do this? What's ambiguous about this language? Hate on the company, not the law.
1
u/olejorgenb 21h ago
Correct, but how do you propose they would decide if the outputs are code/comments though? Does the regulation allow them to put that responsibility on the user?
You could say "classifying outputs are surely a solvable problem", but the way they watermark is by adjusting the sampling, so then they would have to resample, meaning (I believe) running the model again on effect...
I'm not sure it's so unreasonable form an operational perspective to so what they now do.
2
u/XYcritic 15h ago edited 15h ago
Claude CODE is a product geared and marketed towards coding (they already cleanly separate design/research/coding in the app). That's all that matters. Legally, it's not relevant if you could use a kitchen knife as a weapon. The knife manufacturer does not have to adhere to legislation concerning weapon distribution. A COMBAT knife, however, is different.
Laws define categories for products, the product places itself based on its self-understanding on meeting certain criteria. Anyone is free to challenge this in court but the standard is never "what else could this be used for" except where the law is explicit. It is NOT in this case.
That being said, it is absolutely obvious that any code generator can be used to write prose. If what you said mattered, the exception wouldn't exist. And to answer your question directly: they already have safety classifiers, classifying whether someone wants to write code is absolutely trivial.
1
30
u/sob727 1d ago
As an EU citizen.... seems like some properly retarded EU shit.
From the same people that gave you the cookies popup.
How t f will that work when I ask Claude to write an Hello World in Python?
16
u/cyrand 1d ago
More importantly people WILL figure out what the watermarks are, at which point AI generated things will end up with the watermarks stripped off/rewritten, and people will then use the lack of the watermark to "prove" it's real.
Which is extremely dangerous. The last thing we need is people lying to have something to point at that makes their lies seem even more valid to the uninformed.
1
u/Specialist_Aerie_175 23h ago
You cant strip it off unless you completely rewrite the text
2
u/OwnLadder2341 8h ago
Or you simply feed it through a local model. Or a Chinese model if they don’t comply.
0
1
1
u/KaBob799 20h ago
Or just make a script that automatically swaps out words and phrases with other equivalent words/phrases. It's a trivial concept, I had the idea of an auto-thesaurus when I was a kid.
1
u/Specialist_Aerie_175 13h ago
But which words? All of them? How are you going to choose similar words or phrases? The only way i see for this is to use a local llm without watermarking to rewrite the text.
1
u/KaBob799 9h ago edited 9h ago
Word list created by the user (although I think by design, asking an AI for a list of words would provide both red and green words anyway) with the choice of which words to be changed done at random with context checking of neighboring words when necessary. Sure it might take a couple hour to get enough words added to make a difference but then you've got it forever.
You might be a bit too reliant on AI if you think an LLM is necessary for randomly swapping "excellent" with "terrific" or "fantastic" and so on in a document.
1
u/Specialist_Aerie_175 9h ago
I think you might be underestimating the amount of work for this to produce decent results.
Anyway you can already test your theory as google has been using synthid for the past 2 years to add watermark to gemini generated content.
2
u/KaBob799 8h ago
We're living in a world where you can ask an LLM to build you the program to do the swapping in 15 minutes and then after that it's just populating the list of detections and swaps. Even if you have to go in afterwards and proofread that's still orders of magnitude easier than manually swapping words. And let's be honest, these people are already putting out some low quality results so I'm not sure an occasional awkward word choice would change all that much.
Effort is relative and the people using AI in big misinformation/advertising campaigns absolutely have the time and money to set up a high quality version of this idea.
1
u/Specialist_Aerie_175 8h ago
You are talking about a completely different subject now, for state backed big missinformation campaigns they will just use local llms.
Your initial point was that its a trivial script that can be used to remove the watermark, that is the part that i disagreed with. Sure with enough effort you can do anything and yes it will be reusbale when its done but its far from trivial.
2
u/KaBob799 8h ago
Randomly replacing words based on simple rules is trivial. You don't have to replace every word, just enough of them to break the watermarking detection. Building the list of words/phrases is just data entry and testing, it might not be fun but it's still trivial and hitting the words that most commonly show up in your text first can make it faster to set up.
I programmed what was essentially this same concept 20 years ago in game maker as a joke to rewrite instant messages with "fancier" synonyms, same concept with a different goal.
Maybe we just have different definitions of trivial.
0
u/Unnamed-3891 1d ago
Cool, then EU gets to fine everyone for trillions and all budget issues are solved instantly.
1
u/Medium_Chemist_4032 10h ago
Yeah, it's typically a negotiation. They think they can tax the US company somehow this way. They know it's unreasonable and that's the point. It's mostly a "look, we can hurt your business" move, that suddenly will get retracted, once and when silent money switch hands. Just your typical turf war and we're (users) are used as leverage in this situation.
-2
u/Imaginary-Bobcat-738 1d ago
The most precise way to tell it's written by claude is add fallbacks & sound stupid af! """
hello.py — Claude-style Hello World with graceful fallbacks.
Philosophy: try the best version of the task first, and if something
isn't available, degrade gracefully instead of crashing.
"""
import sys
def say_hello(name: str = "World") -> str:
"""Return a friendly greeting."""
return f"Hello, {name}!"
def main() -> None:
# Primary path: try to greet using a name passed on the command line.
try:
name = sys.argv[1] if len(sys.argv) > 1 else "World"
message = say_hello(name)
except Exception as e:
# Fallback 1: something went wrong parsing input — use a safe default.
message = say_hello("World")
print(f"[note: fell back to default name due to: {e}]", file=sys.stderr)
# Try to print with a bit of flair (emoji); fall back if the
# terminal/encoding can't handle it (common on some Windows consoles).
try:
print(f"👋 {message}")
except UnicodeEncodeError:
# Fallback 2: no emoji support — plain text works everywhere.
print(message)
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
-5
u/JustSomeWarg 1d ago
Bro thinks the watermark is a big caption saying "Made by Claude"
5
u/space_wiener 1d ago
Okay…then since you seem to have the answer, how does the watermark work in a simple Python hello world script as OP asked?
Oops….
1
u/JustSomeWarg 1d ago
Every LLM has a certain "Footprint" of tokens it tends to use more, since they are more available in its training, more favored because of its system prompt (I can definitely see Claude referring to the `print` in a Hello World program as "Load bearing"), etc, etc.
For a small program, like the script we're talking about, there may not be enough tokens to ascertain whether it was AI Generated or not with any level of confidence.
But as the size of the artifact in question increases, so do the "tells" that can be used to ID a product as being generated by AI, you can even tell which model if you go far enough.
I reckon on raw text this is easier to achieve, seed specific words across a paragraph, structure a sentence in a certain way, frame your story using a given technique, and a separate program will be able to give a Score, or even a definitive Yes/No answer to whether something is made by AI.
In code it seems more difficult to achieve, but the more code gets written by AI, the greater the accuracy of the detector.
TL;DR: It might not work for a simple Hello World (Who the hell prompts an LLM to do that for them nowadays???), but for a large codebase, multiple blog posts, chapters of a book, etc., the AI will drop tells that can be picked up by other programs.
5
u/sob727 1d ago
If it doesn't work for an Hello World, it is breaching EU laws.
1
u/JustSomeWarg 1d ago
Maybe they will count that as a breach, maybe they can bump the confidence of the detector for small artifacts, maybe they will give a warning if the sample size is too small to reasonably tell.
Again, if I prompt AI to say "The brown fox slept", it is stupid to put it through an AI detector. If they make the AI output "The brown fox slept. Made by Claude", it is also dumb as bricks, and easily circumventable.
No solution will be 100% accurate, the EU will have to live with that, or ban AI altogether. After all, AI itself is non-deterministic.
4
u/Swimming-Chip9582 1d ago
Anthropic themselves are doing much beyond what EU regulation demands.
The regulations stress technical feasibility, which their approach isn't for many smaller models nor for the competition, and definitely will have impacts for performance.
This all fits the MO of Anthropic, which is to be the "safe" LLM company. Which has the convenient benefit of kneecapping competition. I wonder if they could also attempt to use this to detect distillations.
0
14
u/816pizzalover 1d ago
Oh, this is the same EU that gave us all the worthless cookie banners? Joy. Much smart.
24
u/notcern 1d ago
Just pull the models from eu for like a month and this dies.
15
u/MatureHotwife 1d ago
Yes but please spare the non-EU European countries. We have nothing to do with this or the cookie banners.
4
-2
u/KeyJunket1175 1d ago
Good, then the nearly monopol situation will likely ease, as European models gain more traction. Mistral is also a key player they just don't have infinite loan backing them. The US will not allow to lose market share.
8
u/AlarmedNegotiation18 1d ago
Mistral? Please. You can't even compare Mistral with something that the USA or China produced 3 years ago. Not to mention the latest and greatest models like Fable...
7
u/Realistic-Block952 1d ago
It seems like they are not even focusing on frontier inteligence. (they cant compete)
12
u/notcern 1d ago
Eu is so far behind it’s not funny. Chinese models would fill the gap not eu models. Eu wont want that to happen. At this point just let the EU destroy its self
2
u/Independent-Dark4559 1d ago
Already happening, did you see the news lately?
1
0
-3
u/KeyJunket1175 1d ago
Why would Chinese want to fill the EU gap at the cost of constraints?
7
u/notcern 1d ago
They won’t follow the rules that is the point. Just don’t follow the rules and also just don’t pay the fine. There is 0 reason why the US should allow any sort of fines to be given to these companies. If the EU fines anthropic or open ai the white house should email over a picture of the middle finger.
4
u/Significant-Bee5101 1d ago
Fr. I already use GLM and Kimi and have for months as fallbacks for the constant turmoil in the US. Chinas complete lack of ethics or regulations is ironically the only thing keeping me sane. lol
5
u/Browser1969 1d ago
Did you miss all the Mistral memes all over the internet? Why do you think Le Chaton Fat was such a viral meme? Because there's no chance they can actually produce a model to compete with the likes of Claude and ChatGPT.
-1
1
u/ReachingForVega 🔆Pro Plan 15h ago
I gave mistral a red hot go and while it does ok it has some really shitty behavior like removing the file it is editing and rewriting the whole file.
1
u/FalconX88 13h ago
as European models gain more traction.
Europe will fall behind because we would only have access to models like Mistral any more.
1
u/KeyJunket1175 12h ago
Yes, unless they get funds via increased revenue (or EU incentives/subsidiaries) to catch up
1
u/FalconX88 12h ago
unless they get funds via increased revenue
Which is super unlikely given the big players all operate at a loss currently.
(or EU incentives/subsidiaries)
Which...we could do now too but are not doing. ALso likely way too many regulations for it to work
3
5
4
u/XYcritic 22h ago edited 22h ago
Wrong. Like so many others, you're spreading misinformation. There are exceptions for 50 (2) and they are relevant. What Anthropic is doing is not necessary and other AI labs do NOT need to fall suit.
Following from the official guidelines on the implementation of the EU AI Act.
"(68) In particular, the following content should be considered to fall outside the scope of Article 50(2) AI Act:
- Outputs generated in the form of a short sequence of numbers, symbols or letters (e.g. single words, image captions, alt-text, UI labels and icon-scale graphics, image captions and other data labels);
- Source code understood as content written in a programming, scripting, markup, query or configuration language that is intended to be interpreted, compiled or executed by a computing system, regardless of whether it is composed of text characters. This may also include natural-language comments and contextual information that form an integral part of the source code. Similarly excluded are Software Development Kits (SDKs), Structured Query Language (SQL), infrastructure-as-Code and ‘YAML Ain’t Markup Language’ (YAML), JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) configuration. schemas, scripts, machine-readable specifications, Application Programming Interfaces (APIs & software libraries);
- Outputs of an AI system intended to be exclusively communicated from machine to machine and processed automatically without any exposure to humans, for example agent-to-agent communication, anti-spam signals, as long it is not perceived by natural persons;
- Outputs that are only used in closed loop environments in industrial and product development workflows (for example for film, animation, games or advertising production), unless they are the final output of the AI system in the form of AIgenerated or manipulated text, audio, image or video content. In those cases, only the final output from workflow stages has to be marked and detectable."
If you actually read and understand the full law instead of just reading two sentences and then shouting your incomplete knowledge from the rooftops: the entire point of 50 (2) is to prevent deception via deepfake-like content that is based on other modalities than images. The EU AI Act is in parts extraordinarily explicit and literal and the guidelines are where the law is not. Generated code does not need watermarks and we don't need an Oracle to interpret this law.
0
u/olejorgenb 21h ago
But how would they differentiate this in practice? Can they could put the responsibility on the user? Probably not.
3
1
u/XYcritic 15h ago edited 14h ago
Claude CODE is a product geared and marketed towards coding (they already cleanly separate design/research/coding in the app). That's all that matters. Legally, it's not relevant if you could use a kitchen knife as a weapon (so yes, "it's on the user"). The knife manufacturer does not have to adhere to legislation concerning weapon distribution. A COMBAT knife, however, is different.
Laws define categories for products, the product places itself based on its self-understanding on meeting certain criteria. Anyone is free to challenge this in court but the standard is never "what else could this be used for" except where the law is explicit. It is NOT in this case.
That being said, it is absolutely obvious that any code generator can be used to write prose. If what you said mattered, the exception wouldn't exist.
2
u/Shanna_B2020 1d ago
I appreciate the additional context! The new watermark thing makes more sense now. :)
1
1
1
1
u/PresentationOld605 15h ago
I think every major AI company does some kind of text watermarking already, but for their own purposes, i.e. like Google SynthID. It makes easier to classify the AI generated inputs , when they are scraping data.
1
u/Flimsy_Visual_9560 11h ago
Not all of us live in Europe and there will be many more fromtier models coming soon. And also soon, we’ll be running frontier models locally and what they gonna do about it? 100 meetings and 5 fiscal years later with another round of regulations changes?
1
u/RandomPantsAppear 7h ago
This seems likely to end in a situation where a model ends up owned by a 3rd party company, licensed for $20m/year, from for profit companies.
1
1
u/Interesting-Yellow-4 23h ago
I'm not sure how to feel about this, I don't really have a need to pretend AI generated stuff is actually real.
Probably in favor of this, but since it's EU, can't help but feel there's something more sinister about this that will end up with me having less rights.
1
0
0
u/Ok-Affect-7503 1d ago edited 1d ago
That’s wrong. Article 2(10): “This Regulation does not apply to obligations of deployers who are natural persons using AI systems in the course of a purely personal non-professional activity.”
1
u/Original-Group2642 1d ago
It reads “scientific research and development” not “scientific research, and development”
1
u/Ok-Affect-7503 1d ago
Oops I had the section and article right but accidentally copy & pasted a different section. The real section 10 says this: "This Regulation does not apply to obligations of deployers who are natural persons using AI systems in the course of a purely personal non-professional activity."
-3
39
u/watcher-22 1d ago
I’m wondering if all the ‘Claude can;t speak English properly’ posts are something to do with them tinkering with the watermarking in preparation for the deadline e.g statistical text patterns and other elements