OpenAI Is Adding Text Watermarking In ChatGPT and Codex 18
OpenAI is rolling out an invisible, machine-readable text watermark called textGrain to ChatGPT and Codex, "but only for users in the European Union at first," reports The Verge. From the report: OpenAI says its textGrain watermarking "matched or exceeded" other approaches like Google DeepMind's SynthID for text, which is also the basis for the watermarking Anthropic announced in August. Like OpenAI, Anthropic made the move to meet the requirements of the EU's AI Act; however, not everyone was happy to learn about the addition. OpenAI also included scores from AI benchmarks showing similar performance from watermarked and unwatermarked text. But it notes that textGrain "does not guarantee reliable detection," and says text watermarks don't verify accuracy, determine who owns the text, measure how much a human contributed, or prove human authorship.
Paywalled AI Marketing (Score:2)
Can we stop promoting this crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Just get the archive page extension then you can bypass paywalls.
Re: (Score:2)
Watermarks are "marketing"?
What user wants watermarks?
So what? (Score:2)
It is a problem for chatgpt users, and that's far from their worst problem. Using chatgpt is more of a problem.
If you want to be really stupid .. (Score:3)
.. make yourself dependent on AI.
Let it think for you. Just do what it says, it is so much easier. Vote Billionaire, vote yourself poor! Vote for freedom from owning anything and renting it all!
You don't need powers of cognition, you don't need an opinion, we'll sell it to you. I don't know how you'll pay for that without a job, who knows? Maybe AI does, I don't really care, I'm RICH!
AI. It's like watching evolution take a leap backwards.
Very funny (Score:2)
After you paste the AI-generated text into your dissertation in Libreoffice, the 'watermark' is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'd paste it into notepad just to make sure.
Re: Very funny (Score:1)
The watermark is in the pseudorandom number generator that makes the words, genius. You can copy it in purple crayon and it will still show up if the text is long enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that's not how this works.
At the softmax, the hidden state of the last layer output is converted back to token-space / text-space. This is a high-dimensional-space to low-dimensional-space conversion, so there is usually no "single right path" in which the target concept can be represented. The softmax in effect converts the nearest token pathways into probabilities; the closer the token's position to the latent position, the higher the probability.
So you have a probability-scaled list of option
Re: (Score:2)
TL/DR , your options are:
1) Rewrite it in your own words
2) Have a model make a summary or shorthand version of the watermarked version, then have a non-watermarking model flush it back out
3) Use a non-watermarking model to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Dear Gemini,
Please paraphrase this GPT-inspired homework so that I sound like Copilot submitting my assignment at 11:59pm after consuming seven cups of coffee to keep myself awake.
Re: (Score:2)
OR, now hear me out:
4) do it yourself without AI.
So what's it good for? (Score:2)
"OpenAI also included scores from AI benchmarks showing similar performance from watermarked and unwatermarked text. But it notes that textGrain "does not guarantee reliable detection," and says text watermarks don't verify accuracy, determine who owns the text, measure how much a human contributed, or prove human authorship. "
Oh, I see, it is good for Company Misdirection: "OOooooo.....look at that Blibbering Humdinger in the window" (to reuse a Luna Lovegood phrase).
Re: (Score:2)
It's not hard to see how this can backfire. People treat watermarks as the Word of God. But let's say, for example, a journalist, in an article, quotes a White House press statement for something, but the White House used AI. Since they don't "measure how much a human contributed", and detect the watermark in the White House statement in the journalist's article, they'll just flag the whole journalist's article as AI.
And honestly, "not measuring how much a human contributed" is IMHO a massive flaw in gener