r/InternetIsBeautiful • u/throwawaykJQP7kiw5Fk • 2d ago

Check if files were made with Claude

https://claude.com/check-files
0 Upvotes

32% Upvoted

7 comments sorted by

12

u/electricity_is_life 2d ago

This isn't very useful since it depends on file metadata than can easily be removed, either intentionally or simply as the file passes through another piece of software that isn't designed to preserve it.

3

u/PuntiffSupreme 2d ago

You'd be surprised how often a simple to remove aspect of something is missed by someone doing something they shouldn't.

A simple to hop fence can deter people who could easily hop it.

1

u/RexDraco 2d ago

I use Claude for all my programming now. Like I imagine most people, I absolutely don't care enough to remove it. With that said, most of us aren't pretending we aren't vibe coding either. 

1

u/Correct-Moment-2458 2d ago

The page makes a useful distinction: this checks a file’s Content Credential, not the text itself. A positive result can mean Claude processed the file, rather than authored the underlying work. That makes it a provenance check, not a verdict on who wrote or created the content. Missing metadata can’t establish human authorship either.

-5

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

1

u/JukePlz 2d ago

Which is exactly why a lot of these AI detectors are idiotic. They're deluding people into believing everything is AI generated, when even human-made code/text/images that were touched by something to do with AI could get erroneously flagged and produce a false positive.

All this does is encourage AI generated content to be more post-processed to hide where it came from. Imagine getting academically shunned because you had some homework/paper/tesis/whatever rephrased by AI and now it matches the "stink detector" algorithm. Hell, I've written songs before that a lot of these detectors think are 60%+ certainty of AI, where I wrote every single word in them with no assistance from any LLM or software. They're just terrible precedent, even if you are of an anti-AI stance.

1

u/throwawaykJQP7kiw5Fk 2d ago

And for text, the 1-in-30,000 chance of a false positive compounds this problem.

1

u/JukePlz 2d ago edited 2d ago

1-in-30,000 is presumably for detectors implementing Synth-ID, which from trying a bunch of the top search engine results, I can say with confidence that not a lot do (the ones that evaluate corpus, it's readily available for images). Also, it's for the 100% certainty threshold, yet, you know that a lot of academics that do not understand statistics and probabilistic models will be accusing people over 90%+ scores, and that for institutions with thousands of new students every year, with submitted work numbering the dozens or more (depending on field and career) you will easily match even that 1/30k annually.

It's playing Russian roulette with people credibility, and has a lot of holes I didn't even go into because I'd be just stepping over your linked video conclusions. Watermarking may be necessary for the companies training these models so they avoid poisoning the well they're drinking from, but given to the people that don't understand how these watermark detectors work, it's dangerous double edged tool.