How Claude marks AI-generated content

Join the discussion

• Hacker News
• I have had a hunch for a while now that (in addition to these tools), Anthropic has actually leaned in to Claude's distinctive manner of writing since it makes the text more obviously AI generated and thus less susceptible to misuse.

  That's not necessarily the same thing as a markov-style fingerprint but it could be a correlated factor.

  by aabhay
• We need to just stop pretending we can reliably tell if plain text is written by an LLM.

  It’s just not a reasonable ask.

  by jonplackett
• All big LLMs already visibly watermark all their text with easy to detect annoying phrases and turns of speech that everyone is already sick of hearing. Why do AI companies keep making their products worse to appease anti-AI, it’s not like they’ll suddenly start supporting it if you do so. If you’re worried about European customers, just relax your firewalls to let more VPNs through, if the productivity boost is high they will use it anyway if their rules keep crippling their own models
  by mhjkl
• Many good comments here. It’s somewhat common for me to voice record say a blog post of product updates, more like a ramble. Then have Claude clean it up. Then argue back and forth about certain things until it’s good, then make a final pass sometimes to change a few key words. This is incredibly different than pure ai text. Presumably it will show as ai generated here, even though I would argue it is not really. So I can’t use Claude for this usecase anymore.

  I think the solution is assume everything is ai generated unless told otherwise and rely on authorship/brand as a sign of quality.

  by mchusma
• So my code that Claude makes, which previously was using the best (most probable) tokens for the job, will now be getting worse in random positions, to appease a voluntary EU suggestion. Love that.
  by akersten
• I've heard that this kind of watermarking process works by biassing the statistical sampling towards a partition of the set of possible next tokens (red set and green set), at each position. It might only be a slight nudge each time, but over a sequence of tokens, the likelihood of repeating the bias by chance is increasingly improbable.

  The bias is different for each position and follows a defined RNG, seeded somehow predictably.

  Can be either an open algorithm, or not. If not open, then an API could be provided to determine if text is watermarked or not.

  How it applies to code - maybe it could be a subtle nudge to symbol names, etc, I'm just speculating (I only read about this in passing very recently).

  by benrow
• I notice the "Limitations" section talks about how content only at some point touched by Claude may return a positive, and content that returns a negative may still be Claude generated. But I really would have liked for them to state explicitly that entirely false positives where a piece is fully human-written may still be marked as generated, because too many institutions with the power to ruin someone's life over that have trouble understanding the concept.
  by Dilettante_
• > When a supported Claude model generates text, it weaves an imperceptible watermark directly into the text itself. You won’t see it, and it doesn’t change the meaning, quality, or readability of Claude’s response.

  I'd like to know a lot more about how that works.

  A lot of my interactions with Claude return pretty precise text. If I ask it to edit a project and refactor a specific function in several places I know exactly what I want to happen, it will NOT be OK if those refactors have some kind of weird pattern baked into their text to act as a watermark.

  I guess this may be covered by this:

  > Content generated by Claude may not carry a detectable mark if, for example: [...] The passage is very short, leaving too little text for a reliable signal;

  by simonw