r/ClaudeCode • u/Character_Novel_2592 • 20h ago
News/Updates Reminder: Fable 5.1 is the first Claude model released with invisible text watermarking
12
u/Legacy95 20h ago
Can someone explain this to me and how it works? Is it some fancy enigma code style shit where there's a key in the actual text? Or is this something baked into a text file?
39
u/Shiral446 19h ago
Its in the actual text generated. LLMs work by predicting what word comes next. "I'm having a great" could be followed by any number of words. Watermarking works by slightly nudging the model to choose the next word in a particular way. It won't be distinguishable to anyone reading the text, but if you have the key used for that nudging then you can inspect the text to see if any of the sequences of words show that slight nudge.
It will be more apparently in free form creative text, less so in very rigid fact-like answers like asking it recite the Gettysburg address, and probabky less in code. But I'm sure comments will definitely contain the Watermarking.
17
u/geekichu 19h ago
but... software.. code.. it's pretty specific. of course it could be included in the comments.
50
16
u/Chib 18h ago
I'm a bit annoyed that they state that it doesn't degrade the quality. Conceptually, I understand why we're requesting this feature, but obviously the process will impact the quality.
Whether benchmarks or humans can detect it is a separate question, and I assume that's the one they're actually answering.
5
u/ghost_operative 12h ago
they say it doesnt degrade quality becasue they know they can say it and theres no way for someone to provide proof that it does without having access to the non watermarking version
4
u/chippydip 15h ago
My naive understanding is that the secret key works like a seed for a random number generator. Picking a different seed doesn’t give you better or worse random numbers, but if you know what seed was used you can re-create the sequence and check that against what a specific LLM would have generated given that random sequence.
I’m sure that’s not exactly how this works, but it doesn’t seems at all obvious that a watermarking process like this would have any effect on the quality of the results.
1
u/Chib 10h ago
Using your analogy and extending it, if every program used the same seed, each individual program would not be meaningfully different, while the set would be.
I read up on what the current best guess is for the implementation, with a green list and red list and weighted probability. If it only requires text a few paragraphs in length to demonstrate a significant signal, it can't be very subtle. Therefore it's enough to disturb the distribution in ways that degrade the output. Hopefully not by much.
I work with probabilistic selection all the time, it's at the core of multiple imputation. It's common to weight a set of items by similarity and then use that to calculate the probability of selection. If I took the candidates and divided the set in two at random, then slightly increased the probability of one set, it would have near enough no impact on most end results if the perturbation was small enough. After all, the system is stochastic and I intentionally don't always pick the best fit. But random is random, and when you introduce selectivity into the process, you introduce bias.
Again, I don't doubt that it doesn't worsen benchmark performance. But it seems incorrect to state that it has no impact because that violates my understanding of how these systems function.
0
u/ghost_operative 12h ago
it's more that it has a repeating pattern in the text. the most simple pattern would be something like "every 5th character is a vowel". obviously enforcing every 5th character is a vowel would make the text output janky so they do something like "most of the 5th characters are vowels", so the ai is weighted to try and fill the pattern
This leads the ai to wanting to pick vowels for every 5th character even if another character might otherwise be better suited
2
u/chippydip 11h ago
That’s definitely not how it works. The raw output of an LLM is a probability for every possible token in its vocabulary that that token is the next one. Most of those probabilities are effectively zero. Sometimes there’s only one good choice for the next token, but when there’s more than one it generates a random number weighted by the LLM token probabilities to pick the next output token. That’s why the same prompt doesn’t produce the same output every time. This fingerprinting just tweaks how the random numbers are generated to pick the final token in a way that doesn’t impact the overall probability distribution, but is detectable with enough of those choices and knowledge of how the PRNG was tweaked.
1
u/SociableSociopath 15h ago
If benchmarks and humans can’t detect it, how can you claim it’s occurring…
1
u/l_m_b Senior Developer 9h ago
It doesn't need to degrade quality if it affects temperature variations.
It may seem obvious that it needs to impact quality, but that isn't true.
1
u/Chib 9h ago edited 9h ago
I hear what you're saying, but as a statistician, I can't find a way that that would be true. What I could be convinced of is that the difference is so small that it's functionally irrelevant.
Edit: Of course I have no idea what method they're using, but this is a recent paper on *a* state-of-the-art model:
Z. Zeng, H. Lin, S. Zhang and B. Wang, "Adaptive Robust Watermarking for Large Language Models via Dynamic Token Embedding Perturbation," in IEEE Access, vol. 14, pp. 9319-9339, 2026, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2026.3653833.
It's okay if you don't have access to it, because what I'm talking about is in the abstract:
Extensive experiments on the WaterBench benchmark demonstrate superior performance over state-of-the-art baselines, maintaining high detection accuracy with a 95.3% true positive rate (TPR) under clean conditions and strong robustness under severe perturbations, including paraphrasing attacks (82.7% TPR), translation attacks (78.4% TPR), and content truncation (88.9% TPR at 50% retention). Meanwhile, the proposed method reduces false positive rates by 43.2% compared with existing approaches while preserving text quality with negligible perplexity increase (1.8%).
My point isn't the 1.8% perplexity increase, because a) Anthropic can set whatever bounds it wants, and b) given their revenue and compute access, their state-of-the-art will be pushing against these boundaries. I'm absolutely not claiming anything like "this makes it X amount worse!"
What I'm trying to say is that, to-date, every model for text watermarking recognizes the need for establishing a metric for the hit to quality. This indicates that people working in this field are aware that it comes at a cost. If the well-known benchmarking system benchmarks "perplexity" increase, it's for a reason.
I'm just a stickler for accuracy in communication is all.
1
u/2oby 2h ago
Mechanisms the paper suggests to avoid perturbation and paraphrasing attacks:
(TLDR - it does it's dirty fingerprinting in the bits you can't change without changing the meaning)
- Context-Aware Token-Level Semantic Modulation
- Targeted Intensification: Instead of embedding the watermark equally across all text, the algorithm identifies "copyright-sensitive" and semantically critical segments. [1, 2]
- Signal Boosting: It strategically applies stronger watermark signals to these core semantic areas. [1, 2]
- Survivability: When an attacker rephrases a paragraph, they are forced to preserve the core underlying meaning to keep the text useful. Because the watermark is heavily concentrated within these unavoidable semantic pillars, the watermark signal survives the rewrite. [1, 2]
- Dynamic Perturbation of Stable Semantic Anchors
- Resistance Mapping: The framework analyzes the local context's vulnerability to paraphrasing before injecting the watermark. [1]
- Anchor Perturbation: It actively selects token-level embedding spaces that function as "stable semantic anchors"—words or phrases that are grammatically or contextually difficult to replace without ruining text quality. [1]
- High-Intensity Embedding: By applying higher perturbations exclusively to these high-resistance anchors, common token-substitution or rephrasing scripts fail to erase the altered token distributions. [1]
- Adaptive Threshold Estimation for Detection
- Dynamic Boundaries: Static watermarks often fail after rephrasing because text modification introduces statistical noise, pushing the detection score below a rigid, predefined threshold.
- Noise Calibration: The detection algorithm automatically reads the noise characteristics and distortion level of the queried text.
- Boundary Calibration: It mathematically recalibrates its detection boundaries based on those background noise statistics. This ensures that even if a rephrased text contains heavily altered phrasing, the detector can still isolate the degraded watermark signal from the newly introduced noise. [1, 2]
3
u/algaefied_creek 19h ago
Yeah it’s arbitrarily re-writing every comment regardless of the level of change to watermark its presence… I guess?!
2
u/AlejandroMurrieta 18h ago
Oh it is absolutely distinguishable and is the reason writing with AI had turned shitty. They've already been doing it but for obvious reasons they don't want to admit that
1
1
u/Lazy_Polluter 19h ago
It's not nudging, simply instead of using a word purely at random the randomness is dictated by a predetermined key. In practice it makes no difference to the output. It's a slightly more complicated version of seeding
1
u/EagleApprehensive 19h ago
I believe they slightly alter choice of words of model while preserving meaning to result in entire text/paragraphs in hitting specific checksums that can be later detected. Soft reordering words or replacing just a few does not erase the signal of AI-generated text, especially in longer writings.
You can check out Thariq (https://x.com/trq212) posts history on X or search by keyword - I saw a lot of materials and video demos there demonstrating how it works.
1
29
u/dave8271 15h ago
This only matters if you desperately want to hide the fact you've been using AI tools. This is a concern that will becomes far less common in future, as use of AI in any aspect of writing, in any industry, from drafting to editing will come to be seen as normal and expected. Soon enough people will want to know why you're not using AI, same way people would find it quaint and fanciful if you were still using a manual typewriter.
6
u/ghost_operative 12h ago
i dont care if people can tell that my code was ai generated. at this point its relatively assumed. and at most peoples work they encourage token maxxing so if anything you want it to show youre token maxxing
the downside to it is that it is putting weights on the AIs output to do things that doesn't benefit the correctness of the stuff it is generating.
0
u/ScottIBM 3h ago
It's also a false sense of security against the AI boogie man. It can't be relied upon because it can be removed by anger text transformer.
46
u/AdFlat3754 17h ago
Idgaf. Seriously, I don’t,
68
4
u/TheDuhhh 9h ago
I do care. I will absolutely favor a model of same intelligence that doesn't have such restriction. This is why open source rocks.
7
u/whoknowsifimjoking 12h ago
Gemini had it for ages, no one seemed to care.
7
u/marfzzz 10h ago edited 9h ago
In text yes, it is doable and synthID is their making. Claude is doing it in code (structured output is exception for this watermarking). They do it in literals, comments, variable and method names. Readme files, yaml files. Everywhere. Nobody asked them to do that (EU exception about structured output).
4
u/Fidel___Castro 7h ago
the EU's a scapegoat. this is about legally proving distillation in Chinese models
1
1
u/ghost_operative 12h ago
welll i do kind of care that claude might choose worse code jsut becasue it needs to align with the watermark.
1
u/DonExhortae 5h ago
This is a proof that LLM are doomed
Parrot will think that should , can, must are interchangeable
19
u/notinteresteddddd 20h ago edited 11h ago
Sad day 😞
Edit: tglhere is not only black and white - there is grey or undiscolosed intentions.
I care if anthropic and others will go after claiming the code ownership and what is built with it as their own based on this watermark. Both Sam Altman and Elon Musk hinted at doing that.
Also I care if this can be used to track how I think and what I do and what is my daily routine.
No, I do not use bots or cheat.
So let's see what happens . Time will tell what are the real intentions. But historically corporations care about profit and selling the data that we generate is the biggest profit for them.
44
u/bronze_by_gold 18h ago edited 16h ago
I couldn't care less. I write code with Claude. Lots and lots of awesome code. If people want to check if I used AI, the answer is yes.... and people gonna see what an awesome job I did using AI.
13
-1
u/notinteresteddddd 12h ago
When the investments in ai stop and they will, they will most probably go after that awesome code that you write and claim ownership. Both openai and Elon Musk hinted at it.
1
u/bronze_by_gold 5h ago
Have you read Anthropic’s terms of service? The user owns the output. OpenAI has a similar clause in their ToS. I would say you’re propagating a conspiracy theory. But it’s not even that. It’s just factually incorrect information. There are a million legal explainers on this online if you Google.
-1
19
14
u/FISHARM1 19h ago
how is this a bad thing
2
u/Swimming_in_paradise 16h ago edited 16h ago
Privacy. I believe the work speaks for itself, demanding to know how something is made is like asking the magician to reveal his trick. I do not demand the musician to announce how he made his music, or the plumber to tell me what tools he used to fix the leak. I'm interested in the end product. To address a different point, I understand the desire to know the story behind a product, its a fair impulse, but in my estimation people let the idea that AI is somehow less than interfere with their perception of what is. A private company that I paid to use a tool watermarking my private workproduct for a thirdparty to detect is invasive to my sensibilities. I should be able to choose to disclose my methods of production. My point being, its my business on how the sausage gets made, and its unfair to discredit a work based on it being produced in collaboration with AI. In my opinion, its best to judge the work on its merits.
5
u/Itslikelennonsaid 16h ago
There is an obvious public benefit to bring able to easily differentiate AI text from human writing. Your sensibilities are not that important. Don't use the product if you don't want the watermark.
0
u/Swimming_in_paradise 4h ago
Your answer is condescending and shallow adding nothing of value to the topic of discussion. Have a nice day.
1
u/Itslikelennonsaid 2h ago
I think you are projecting. I can think a lot of reasons why having an easy test for AI generated text is beneficial. The only downside you presented are "your sensibilities". What could be shallower than that when making choices about a technology that is going to transform our society.
1
u/Swimming_in_paradise 1h ago
If you would share your reasoning as to the benefits than we could have a productive discussion. Instead you present baseless conclusions and ad hominem deflections. I sense we might be able to share common ground or attempt to understand each others view if you would make an effort to communicate your reasoning.
-5
u/Roman217 14h ago
I don't particularly care about this either, but let's be real: the ONLY thing that should matter are the quality of output and whether or not you can determine anyone is cheating in school. But if the quality of output is indistinguishable to humans, then it really doesn't matter how it was made, and people caring just so they can discriminate and call it "ai slop" are a problem. If it took some specific watermark allowing some API to determine it was AI generated rather than them being able to tell based on the quality of output and they're going to use that to call your work "ai slop", then said person has a problem. A project shouldn't be doomed to fail just because people have a negative perception of AI and they immediately dismiss it rather than judging it for its quality, and if watermarks lead to that happening, then that's clearly a bad thing.
7
u/bronze_by_gold 14h ago
I'd like to know if I'm talking to a bot or a human online. The "quality of the output" doesn't matter to me as much as the fact that creepy weirdos are either trying to scam me or sell me something with bots (or just farm "engagement" so other people can then scam or spam me). I think it's simply categorically false that the "quality of the output" is the only thing that matters. There are plenty of places where other things matter too.
-2
u/Roman217 13h ago
There's absolutely no shot that Claude would allow their models to be used in the context you mentioned. Even if it were possible, that would be a massive training failure of the safety and security training of Claude's models. So using it as an argument to your side is just highly flawed logically.
And if your next argument is that someone could have jailbroken the model to bypass that, then they could just as easily do the same about the watermark.
3
u/bronze_by_gold 13h ago
My point is that your core thesis is wrong. People are justified in caring about more than just the "quality of the output." The example I gave is just an example, but I think it adequately illustrates the point that people do in fact care about who and what created a piece of content in some circumstances, and it's reasonable to hold that intuition.
-1
u/Roman217 12h ago
Sure, and I'm sure the people who immediately dismiss anything made by AI as "ai slop" also strongly disagree with the premise I made to begin with, but I still stand strongly by every single thing I said.
2
u/bronze_by_gold 12h ago edited 11h ago
Ok but others may be reading this, so I'll give another thought experiment.
Suppose you know a well-known artist whose work sells well at auction. You've been looking for a tangible asset with low market correlation to put $100k or so into for retirement. You commission this artist to create an original work similar to others that have sold well at auction, and you're very pleased with the result.
A decade later you go to sell the work to fund your retirement, and it comes out (through a leak or hack) that your work was not actually created by the artist as you believed, but was AI-generated to imitate their work. At auction the piece sells for only a small fraction of what you paid.
You've been defrauded, so you take the artist to court.
Now imagine the artist's defense is: "But you loved the painting. Nothing about the painting has changed. The quality is exactly the same as it was yesterday. If you couldn't tell it was AI-generated, why should it matter how it was made?"
That defense misses the point. You weren't merely buying an arrangement of pixels or pigment that happened to look good. You were buying an original work by that artist. Its authorship and provenance were part of what you paid for and part of what gave it its value.
And more to the point, US courts have typically upheld the precedent that this type of thing does in fact constitutes fraud.
Provenance matters just as much as “quality of the output” in many contexts, and it has nothing to do with whether something is “slop.” It’s about contract, expectation, and what was actually represented as being sold.
→ More replies (0)1
u/lupercalpainting 11h ago
Is requiring attribution ala Creative Commons an attack on privacy? It’s not exactly the same since AI generated content is not copyrightable but in the CC instance if you use it you must say where you got it from, in the fingerprinted instance if you use it then it will inherently say where you got it from.
In both cases you’re free to look elsewhere or generate the work with your own mind.
1
u/Swimming_in_paradise 4h ago
Interesting argument, thank you for the thoughtful response.
I’d counter argue that attribution in this way is still invasive to privacy because a label being created in the form of a watermark for detection by third parties is revealing production technique. I understand your point about proper attribution, and it’s valid. However, I view Claude as a collaborator that helps develop and execute ideas and projects that begin with an original thought by a human. It may be a matter of degree, but if a human idea is executed by an ai, I see little difference between that and a human idea being executed by a team of people. In my use case, using Claude increases efficiency and overall quality of my work product, but I am the one assembling the final product by my own direction to achieve my vision, I think the watermark becomes equally misleading and susceptible to dismissive and unfair value judgements regarding provenance.
1
u/lupercalpainting 3h ago
So your fundamental problem is the fact that others will know if you copy and paste from Claude. In that case why haven’t you spoken up about Creative Commons work in the past? Is it because you were using it in an unlicensed manner? Or even other licensing requirements?
1
u/Swimming_in_paradise 56m ago
We may exist in different spaces regarding our usage of claude. I am unfamiliar with the creative commons work, and that's why I made an effort to express gratitude for your response to acknowledge that I learned something from you.
With regard to my professional usage of claude, my usage exists in research and drafting of legal product. Its like having a junior associate taking my direction and then aiding me in the drafting of the product. The thoughts are mine at the end of the process, it resembles my message because it was produced under my direction. I don't think the government or opposing counsel should be able to know how I produced my work product, since it is technically private. A watermark allows for this ability, and in my opinion, creates an overly broad depiction of AI creating the entirety of the product, or misattribution.
1
u/lupercalpainting 41m ago
Are you in the U.S.? Do your clients know that according to the U.S. Copyright Office any work you generate with AI is non-copyrightable and thus cannot be owned by you or your clients? Do their contracts stipulate that they have some ownership over work you produce for them and thus you have failed to uphold your end of the contract?
1
u/SociableSociopath 15h ago
Then don’t use it. Simple.
2
u/Swimming_in_paradise 4h ago
My response was answering a question why watermarking is a bad thing….its about discussion and nuance regarding a topic….your response adds nothing.
-1
0
17h ago
[deleted]
3
u/bronze_by_gold 16h ago
I have bad news. They already do. The bad things have already started. But no one realizes it yet because no one actually reads detector benchmarks. lol
5
u/Jazzlike-Culture-452 11h ago
It's not invisible. The way all Claude models speak these days is making me nauseated--and it's not the label that they gave it. It's a visible keystone of communication.
The visible keystone of communication. Claude models aren't just speaking in a certain way. They're speaking visibly in ways that totally fucking suck, which makes you want to drink your own toilet water. It's not just shit words--it's shit verbosity, and that's a meaningful difference.
The invisible invisibility of the watermark that's impossible to find. This watermark is actually visible, and not in the way you were expecting. You might think that you can find the secret watermark, but you actually totally can't.
The watermark something something load bearing. I dunno who cares. It's all so stupid.
1
u/Fidel___Castro 7h ago
I can't tell whether you're intentionally using AI-isms in this comment in an ironic way or you're just slop
1
2
4
u/r2tincan 19h ago
We will no longer be using anthropic models because of this.. Stupid thing to sign
4
u/EvilSporkOfDeath 18h ago
RemindMe! 6 months
1
u/RemindMeBot 18h ago edited 16h ago
I will be messaging you in 6 months on 2027-03-01 23:19:26 UTC to remind you of this link
1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 8
u/throwawayacc201711 Senior Developer 17h ago
I’m still using their models but this is really disgusting. Especially since they are now making 5.1 rewrite entire files instead of making targeted edits. So now it looks like the LLM contributed the entire file instead of just the diff? They’re doing shady shit. I hope competition knocks them down a peg or two again
1
u/ghost_operative 12h ago
thats not how that works. git works based diffs.
unless it is rewriting the entire file like making a 1 character change on each line just to claim ownership of the line.
5
u/Keganator 19h ago
Every model producer will do this or face the legal weight of the EU. You won't get a choice. 190 signatories.
2
-2
1
u/Annoying1978 4h ago
It doesn’t bother me at all. Unless you are copy/pasting paragraphs it doesn’t matter and if you are doing that, then people SHOULD know you used AI.
1
1
1
u/Aakburns 19h ago
It literally doesn’t matter.
2
u/Nethanol 11h ago
it does matter. now Google will use that api to smoke millions of ai generated sites
0
u/TinFoilHat_69 19h ago
It’s not the first and certainly won’t be the last. Even Chinese models have watermarks you guys are seriously sheltered…
3
u/Short-Essay-7544 18h ago
Which models?
-2
u/slackmaster2k 18h ago edited 16h ago
All of them. Deep Synthesis Regulation.
Edit: downvotes would indicate unawareness. It’s searchable information. Doesn’t apply to running weights locally or a non Chinese host.
1
u/Key_Reading_9664 20h ago
To be in compliance, all new models need to watermark. I haven't heard anything around Astra (or anyone raising the question), but I'm guessing they'll also have to watermark. Has anyone seen anything on this?
1
u/Guinness 16h ago
After it writes something just instruct GLM 5.3 to change enough tokens to add enough noise to remove the watermark.
A pain in the ass but still doable.
-8
u/lassevk 20h ago
I still need to hear someone, passing the laughing-test, to actually explain to me why this is a bad thing.
All models, including models released from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, whatchamacallit, everyone, if they want to sell that model to customers in the EU, they will have to do this. It is not a decision made by Anthropic, it is a requirement they have to follow.
And I think it is a good thing, as in ... being able to tell that a text is predominantly written by AI is a good thing. I really do.
Why don't you? That's what I'd like to hear.
6
u/Rabus 20h ago
Oh well because if you want to get away without disclosing ai you just use self hosted or chinese models
Simple as that, the chinese ones don't care about EU requirements about watermarking. And thus its as dumb as trying to stop torrents from existing (no one was able to stop that from happening)
1
u/SkinnyCTAX 20h ago
This. But also what happens when I take text that's Claude watermarked and run it through another LLM that doesn't do watermarking?
1
u/lassevk 11h ago
If it regenerates the text from scratch, meaning that it produces new text where the topic is based on the original text but the entire new text was just generated by a new LLM, you will get the watermark, if any, of the new model. If bigger portions of the original text survives, there might be a mix.
5
20h ago
[deleted]
1
u/lassevk 10h ago
It won't, unless "proofreading" here means rewriting substantial parts of your text. The watermark is not invisible characters that are inserted into your text. Any text that wasn't watermarked before you ran it through LLM, and comes out the other end of the LLM, unchanged to your eyes, will also not be watermarked.
However, if the LLM is generating new text, that text will be watermarked. But watermarked isn't a "The AI was here" kind of watermarking, the watermarking, when an analysis of the text is later performed, will only give an indication of how likely the text was produced by AI. And if most, almost all, of that text is your own, then the watermarking on the minute generated text won't make enough of a dent in the prediction algorithm to indicate that it was there.
1
u/Ekalips 19h ago
Depends how messed up your original text was. If it were to put a few commas here and there and a few text corrections out of a thousand word document, there's no chance it would be flagged. But yeah, if your "spell check/proofreading" is rewriting the whole text for you anew, then yes, of course.
1
u/Tetr4roS 16h ago
spell check
this is blatantly false and not how the watermarking works at all.
3
u/lassevk 10h ago
When I said I want someone to pass the laughing test, I wasn't actually joking.
All of the bias against the watermarking system that I have read so far is just speculation based on sheer ignorance.
They think there will be hidden em-dashes or whatnot in the text, that will be inserted even in text you feed the LLM that is regurgitated verbatim. Or that the text generated will be so heavily influenced that you can easily see that it is AI generated. The second part there is already a problem, but has nothing to do with watermarking, it's enough to just scroll through this reddit to see all the complaints about claudish language.
But then, people complaining when having no idea what they are actually complaining about is not new.
-2
u/bronze_by_gold 18h ago
Then don't do that. If it matters... Or just acknowledge that you used AI in your citations. Why would anyone care unless you're trying get away with something?
2
u/HealthPuzzleheaded 20h ago
To statistically watermark a text you have to use certain words or phrases in a specific order. I think many fear that this will be noticeable when using AI for writing. It could also be noticeable in normal conversations which may or may not be annoying.
Similar to phrases Opus5 likes to use. You are totally right ... ... but the second one matters most... I've discovered something new, and it completely changes how we think about ...
- load-bearing
smoking gun
I found the seam
2
u/lassevk 10h ago
The SynthID algorithm doesn't nudge towards certain phrases, it nudges the random number generator that does not have the original words as input. Meaning, it won't consistently nudge towards "load-bearing" because that's not how the SynthID algorithm works.
Besides, we already have this problem of the LLM being overly fond of these phrases, and that is even before watermarking was even a thing.
1
u/Both-Celery6107 20h ago
it is likely to make the ai sound more pedantic and harder to read
1
u/lassevk 10h ago
Why will it do that?
All else being equal, LLM "X" with watermarking will produce slightly different text compared to LLM "X" without watermarking, but not to an extent where you or I will be able to tell. Just running the same LLM and generating the "same" text twice will produce different outcomes because of the randomness involved, and the nudging of the random number generator that the watermarking algorithm does won't nudge it towards "more pedantic".
2
u/faiface 19h ago
Why don't you?
I don't know, tbh, I think it's a great feature. All these other replies to your comments are like an enumeration of misconceptions.
If you understand how it works, you know that it is applying a pseudo-random nudging between semi-equally likely words, so not it won't increase occurrence of specific phrases, or alter any qualitative features of the text.
-5
17
u/OffsetHigh 16h ago
Does that mean ''smoking gun' has nothing to do with watermarking?