Seems pretty easy to defeat by running text output through a random reworder process that would effectively repeat the same routine on low-stakes words, replacing them with similar ones. We learned this in high school, jumping through your paper and hitting random words with the thesaurus to 'sound smarter'

“How does affect Claude’s outputs?”

Is poor proofreading a form of watermarking? Clever, I suppose, but they should consider running posts through Sol for clarity.

Yesterday https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49292932

Can anybody take a body of text and determine if it's from Claude or not? (Or if it's AI-generated or not)?

Anthropic: doing everything they can to own any output they produce/prevent scrubbing of association for them - except when it comes to the CEO's wife's porn funding attempt from Epstein :D https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/claude-dario-amodei-wife-anthrop...

> Google DeepMind tested this impact by serving a model that used watermarking to a portion of their Gemini traffic and comparing thumbs-up and thumbs-down ratings. They found no statistically significant differences from the unwatermarked model. And in a controlled study, human raters comparing watermarked and unwatermarked answers side-by-side saw no difference in quality.

For some reason I had assumed testing this would be more sophisticated than just checking the thumbs up/down stats and user "vibes"