Comment by Tiberium
4 days ago
This is just C2PA for Claude-processed files, apparently. It's not related to their text watermarking.
C2PA is file metadata and can be trivially stripped away, unlike hidden watermarks, e.g. SynthID.
4 days ago
This is just C2PA for Claude-processed files, apparently. It's not related to their text watermarking.
C2PA is file metadata and can be trivially stripped away, unlike hidden watermarks, e.g. SynthID.
That is where their responsibility ends in terms of the EU AI Act. And that is fine and how it should be, no secret watermarks.
Watermarks should even be removable "if substantially proofread or altered" in the EU for the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
Watermarks cane even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says. For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself. Not clear is this is a may, shall, or should. It certainly is not a must.
(If you post a comment here on HN, then hit the back button, edit your comment, and click “reply” again, you end up posting multiple comments. That’s what’s happened here.)
It's not gonna survive my linter in a tightly coupled code base where it's not allowed to write comments but I do resent it for trying.
There's no way text watermarking isn't causing a degradation in writing quality.
Text watermarking will surely cause a degradation in quality writing.
There's is no text watermarking that doesn't cause a decline in writing quality.
Writing quality will surely deteriorate if text watermarking is implemented.
5 replies →
A lot of random-ish numbers go into LLM output and there's a lot of room to hide signals in random-ish numbers.
The real problem is false positives. One false positives is enough to make the whole thing dangerous. The results can't really be acted upon without risking defamation. If you admit that you redistributed someone else's copyrighted work to an AI company that never forgets, it's an admission of distributing copyrighted works.
The law should have at the very least required offline validation tools that cannot track or retain a copy of the documents being checked.
1 reply →
Watermarks can even be removed, "if substantially proofread" in the EU, law says (for now. There might be a transition period on that).
For the text from an LLM, that you verify to be as true as if you wrote it yourself.
Not clear if making watermarks removable is a may, shall, or should, according to legislation. It certainly is not a must.
The way I read it, I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end. Is that not the case?
That’s incompatible with the file not leaving your browser, which you can trivially verify with the Network tab in chrome (or wireshack, etc).
This is just a C2PA metadata checker.
Why? The browser can see the file and contents so it can calculate and send the hash over without the actual file ever leaving the browser.
Strictly speaking, properly checking C2PA metadata requires network requests in the general case, because you need to check if the signing certificate has been revoked or not via OCSP.
But in anthropic's use case they can probably get away with just pinning their own certs in the verification webpage.
> I thought they would just check if the file hash exists on their end
That would invalidate the hash on minor changes. Too much effort and not enough return.
[flagged]