Unless I missed something, that seems pretty brittle. Wouldn't any minor editing break it because the watermark is derived from the preceding text? Eg. Find + replace "it is" to "it's"
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2026
299 points (97.8% liked)
Technology
87507 readers
3080 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Very interesting read.
At least copy the work. Even when you had someone else do your homework, you still had to copy what they put down so you don't get caught.
And the lower used one might actually be for the “posh” kind.
How does this survive variation in temperature? Also I wonder if it's possible to fine tune this behavior out.
Thats really interesting. Thanks! Is there a way to test this or command line tool? I suppose I could try and create my own tool, but im assuming there is a tool here im just not seeing.
I see a LOT of claims by people in this thread. It would be nice if they would give proof one way or another.
Test what? Anthropic hasn't made a detection method available yet, and I think none of the free models have the watermarking yet, as they're all older than Aug 2.
They're invisible, they survive copying, and they work because they don't live in the characters at all. They live in the choices between words.
So it is yet another way for AI to falsely hurt neurodivergent people over their writing styles and word choices.
Fuck AI.
Only if the neurospicy people happen to make all of the same choices, which seems extremely unlikely to me.
Certainly as someone quite neurospicy, I am not personally worried by this at all.
This is not a “watermark,” it is a minor shift of statistical probability. Whether content contains that “shift” will be “measured” using more AI-based tools that will flag sentence structures that hew toward faintly less common word selections.
We need AI companies to shut the fuck down. We do not need theatrics designed to deceive the populace into thinking this is not akshually a great filter moment while false positives and ponzy-scheme AI buildout harm those of us who want nothing to do with these tech-bro beatified lorem ipsum regurgitators.
Don’t fall for the theatrics. This is not at all what they are trying to bill it.
okay, bud, that has nothing to do with anything I replied with. Go on and have fun out there, though, I guess.
What? Lol
What is the statistical likelihood of an individual possessing access to a thesaurus inadvertently precipitating the activation of the artificial-intelligence revelation watermark?
It's not like it's a secret invisible Unicode character flag or something, it's just a series of word choices. To me, this seems extremely unreliable. It's only one step removed from those "unreliable A.I. detection tools" that scan for common word choices A.I. uses. You've just biased your own A.I. to use specific word choices and then told your own A.I. to check for those words. This doesn't seem special or interesting to me. There's still going to be false positives, but now with even more false confidence.
load more comments
(1 replies)