The immediate problem is that the 1% can't sustain the 1% for more than a generation or two tops before everything breaks down and goes to shit and they need the people they exterminated.

The longer-term problem would be inbreeding. Last I read you need a population of around 10,000 minimum to have enough people to breed with without having to reinforce dangerous recessives, and that's with care and planning. And the means of long distance travel will break down faster than most other stuff, and they won't be able to fix that either.

There's really no model in which the wealthy exterminate the masses which doesn't lead to the end of the species, with modern technology. Maybe if you had nanotech general assemblers.

The same person has the same mentality and will do both things when given the opportunity. They don't care what you want. They will do it to you because they want to and they can.

Correct, not without a mandate. But when the government above says now it's time to do the thing, the thing happens. And that's why this is a problem that must be solved at a higher level. For too long we have allowed uneven standards in policing and its administration, from state to state, county to county, city to city. We must institute strong laws which rein in police to protect citizens, and this must include a national registry which police departments are required to use during the hiring process so that they are at least informed about which officers abused their position. Nobody should ever have the excuse that they didn't know, what fucking year is it?

Police unions will fight this to the very end, so we should fight those unions over it until they bend or fail. I'm generally pro-union but we shouldn't pretend that they are all good, or that everything they do is positive, or that we don't have a right as a populace to oppose them when they are doing things which harm us.

Perhaps you should be realizing by now that homework is no longer a viable way to test how well students actually know the subject matter, and the only viable way to do so is in-class tests/exercises - frequent enough and worth enough of the grade to force them to study between lessons.

OR, alternatively, you could just keep doing what you're doing, and instead, in effect grade people on:

Comparably poor grades:
* People who actually do the work by hand
* "AI N00bs" who let stuff like that slip through

Comparably good grades:
* AI-experienced people who know enough to skim over the work, do multiple passes, or issue prompts that prevent such tells from getting into the work

Wherein, in effect, your net reward/punishment is inverted vs. what you should want it to be.

Closing one's eyes and ears to the fact that the environment students operate in has changed isn't an acceptable option. Education must adapt. And watermarks, BTW, will only catch "the n00bs"; more experienced / up to date students will keep track of what watermarks and what doesn't, and use AIs that don't watermark, or de-watermarking services.

Austerity has never worked because of velocity of money, you are literally preventing the creation of wealth when employing it. It's the same when applied to Greece by the EU. They've been happy to suck wealth out of Greece, require that it meet standards they set while some of their own members don't meet their own standards (including Germany which has been the strongest voice for austerity) while also doing nothing to help them meet targets, like increasing imports. Come back to the USA and compare to blue states subsidizing social programs in red states while also having people leave those states for social reasons (i.e. if you're not heteronormative and white then you're othered) and come to our states where we have to support them, too. Then they tell us we shouldn't spend money on things like HSR, well guess what motherfuckers, we need a way to move all these people around that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

It's all greed-driven, it's all victim-blaming, it's all the rich protecting their privilege while we dick around with culture wars instead of getting out the guillotines.

I'll repeat: watermarks are anti-marketing. They discourage use.

SynthID in text genuinely is invisible. The probability shifts are small, and all the pathways are valid pathways to express the same thought.

And no, you cannot "collide" text watermarks. At best, it'll only have the latter one's watermark. At worst, both.

It'll still get tagged by SynthID.

You have to use a non-watermarking LLM. Saying "Don't do anything that will watermark it" doesn't help.

All of this crap is in a database, it's a relatively simple matter of writing and running a report. I used to do that for a living, it's not as hard as people imagine it to be.

And ruining education.

If they would stop acting like psychopaths then we would stop assuming they are psychopaths.

Watermarks are "marketing"?

What user wants watermarks?

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 general even if the author was using AI. If the person wrote an article, and then told an AI, "correct my spelling, grammar, and poor phrasing", that's IMHO entirely different from the person just telling an AI "Write this article for me", and just pasting whatever it spits out in as their own, whole cloth. Contribution assessment is, IMHO, essential for fairness. And also, eminently doable. It is perfectly technologically possible to not just see, "does this signature exist", but even get a sense of exactly what the AI contributed vs. what it didn't.

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.

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 options. Sometimes, the token that comes after is almost 100% certain. For example:

"This artifact was found in the tomb of the boy-pharaoh Tutankhamun "

Sometimes it's not:

"Ravi was hungry, so he climbed the mango tree and picked (... a mango)"
"Ravi was hungry, so he climbed the mango tree and carefully (...picked a mango)"
"Ravi was hungry, so he climbed the mango tree and grabbed (...a mango)"

Etc. There may be a whole wide range of possibilities.

A primitive watermarking algorithm, thus, can be represented in the "even-odd" algorithm. You divide up all tokens randomly into even or odd bins. On even-numbered generated tokens, you slightly increase the odds of tokens from the "even" bin and decrease them from the "odd" bin - maybe, say, "picked" declines in odds and "grabbed" rises. On odd-numbered generations you reverse your boosting. The probability shifts aren't huge, so it's still going to say "Tutankhamun", not "TutankhJetBrains", regardless of whether it's an even or odd token. But it might flip, say, "picked" vs. "carefully" vs. "grabbed" or whatnot. With a large enough sample size - and it doesn't have to be huge - you can tell whether this token bias exists.

This is, as mentioned, a primitive algorithm, and it has vulnerabilities - but it's not hard to see how you can adapt it to more advanced algorithms that are less vulnerable to user manipulation.

So no, you can't get rid of the watermark just by cut and paste. It's embedded in the choice of wording itself.