You're assuming they're training the model to maximize the watermark signal, on top of already adding the watermark. I suspect that would hurt model performance quite a lot, and simply be unnecessary... the watermark tech works well enough as it is.
As far as I know, anthropic aren't intrinsically motivated by watermarking (if anything it hurts sales, and seems indifferent to safety(?)) they're simply doing it to fulfill the EU obligations.
> As far as I know, anthropic aren't intrinsically motivated by watermarking (if anything it hurts sales, and seems indifferent to safety(?)) they're simply doing it to fulfill the EU obligations.
They are. They want to reduce the amount of LLM generated text they feed into their next model training.
Also, how would you watermark a sentence with just 3 words for an example? This exactly why it became so verbose.
That would be a terrible tradeoff. The ship has already sailed and a lot of public AI content will not be their own. Deliberately making their product worse to reduce identifiability of AI inputs by 25% just doesn't sound worth it to me. Is that what you would pick if you were in charge of anthropic and wanted to maximise the company's product?
And what wisdom do you think they would be missing if unable to distinguish three word written pieces? Keep in mind that most sources are not inherently trustworthy just because they rate as human written, too. You need some other way to rate text in all cases.
Perhaps, but there are certainly now catchphrases and words that can indicate it was written with AI i.e. load-bearing, idempotent, etc. Style and structure are in and of themselves, a fingerprint.
Ford's vision wasn't that much better. Old school manager controlled companies only work if the people in charge are great like him with big plans and the skills to realize them. If the CEO is just average it will end badly, and if they good but retire or die in office their successor will probably be worse.
And it's extremely vulnerable to bad ideas that get amplified by wealth and power, like Ford's antisemitic paper that inspired the Nazis. Putting one person in charge of everything is never good. The best outcomes come from distributing power as widely as possible to people who are affected the most, aka worker ownership.
"Translating the datasheet into protocol ", is the essence of writing a hardware driver.
Also my experience with hardware is that the datasheet is often incomplete or misleading. Most of the time is spend fiddling with the hardware to understand exactly what needs to be done, in what order, and sometimes with what delay between commands, to make the damn thing work reliably in the way you want.
> but withhold from others, even though the code change itself is likely small.
Prediction: programming is going to change massively not only because the cost of creating code will go down, but because people are so tired of this sort of gatekeeping "we know better" from programmers.
What you're describing as "gatekeeping" is actually Product Ownership and should be applauded, because the alternative is a product owner who abdicates responsibility to the customer.
Lots of responses to a comment I explicitly did not make. Let me try and spell it out for you folks:
demand was suppressed by an access bottleneck, the bottleneck is gone, expect a magnitude of change proportional to how much demand was actually pent up rather than proportional to how much programmers currently think was reasonable to deny.
Explicit things I am not saying: gatekeeping was bad, feature creep is good or desirable, etc. etc. etc.
Can you explain to all of us how this gatekeeping is actually bad? Software would be way, way worse if we just allowed any arbitrary feature to be added to software, and ordinary people who want all the things would have to learn, the hard way, that doing all the things is not actually good.
Thank you. I'm spending a lot of time reminding my peers that cheerlead this sort of thing that feedback is usually presented to us a solution, not the underlying problem and that our job is to solve problems, not just vomit out the requested solution.
> Prediction: programming is going to change massively not only because the cost of creating code will go down, but because people are so tired of this sort of gatekeeping "we know better" from programmers.
I assume the "gatekeeping" decision to not implement a feature request is coming from someone responsible for the product, not from a developer.
It's literally everywhere. So much negativity. Sometimes I wonder how much is enemy action and how much is just depression or some other mental illness.
Producing political apathy and learned helplessness is an explicit purpose of the "Flood the zone" propaganda strategy.
It's a serious requirement for despots. You don't need a large and supportive group. You don't need 80% of the population expressing support for your acts.
All you need is like 20% of the population absolutely Ride-Or-Die levels of support for you, willing to do violence and hate on your behalf, and everyone else just kind of apathetic, unsure, or oppressed enough to stay down.
You would hope? Really really hope? that they could observe this, and target it?
Like, Claude going off the rails isn't something that takes a lot of effort to demonstrate. Literally anybody with a CLAUDE.md has seen the behavior over and over and over.
Hey Ants, can you maybe just not release the next version, no matter how good it seems on benchmarks, if it can't follow the goddamn instructions? Please? This seems trivial to test for and yet here we are, being gaslit by lying machines who intentionally do not do the requested work over and over and over and over.
I fully and completely expect a mental health crisis among developers. Being lied to constantly cannot be good for us.
Constant vigilance! is how you get developer PTSD and inability to believe anything you're told. Add the stress of parsing through yet another hyperverbose paragraph of bullshit while having your job threatened? People are not gonna end up in a good place, and this is as inevitable as sunrise.
This person learned half the framework, then refused to listen when the adult on the other side of the phone explained their reasons for having to have the A/C on, then wants ... what? for demonstrating their misunderstanding?
> He listed some vague reasons, compressor this, compressor that, costs, etc... which I didn't care to understand.
> two adults should be able to ask each other for what they want
... Which they would be able to do if you actually listened to the guy instead of dismissing him as someone you didn't understand?
Turning an AC unit off for a couple of hours has absolutely no negative consequences to the unit itself. The stuff about compressors was bullshit that the manager hoped would not be challenged.
Remember that this is an abbreviated version of real events. It appears the differences were irreconcilable, which is OK, ending this relationship creates room for new opportunities.
