Hacker News Reader

Comment by dns_snek | Hacker News Reader

Are you worried about being accused of using LLMs to generate your work? As long as you don't plagiarize you have nothing to worry about.

View on HN

I'm not too sure about that, people making stuff have already gotten penalized by overzealous AI detectors, most recently Kurtzgesagt.

Those aren't based on a recognisable watermark but dumb heuristics.

You can't make a blanket statement like this without knowing how the watermark is implemented.

Why not? I'm assuming that the watermark detector won't have plausible false positives on human-written text otherwise it won't have much merit to begin with.

If a detector flags something in your text and you've properly attributed that text to another author then what is there to worry about?

If you take it as given that the watermark detector won't have "plausible false positives" then, sure, your argument becomes trivial. I'm not taking that as given.

I'm not taking anything as given. If it suffers from false positives then you have nothing to worry about because the signal won't have any merit -- just like existing AI detectors today. If it doesn't suffer from false positives then you have nothing to worry about because your text won't be detected.

These things aren't binary. There is a large middle ground, which is where Pangram sits today. It's good enough to be useful, but I absolutely would not be willing to fail a student on the basis of a Pangram positive.

If you are implying that this Claude watermark may be good enough to enter the "evidence to fail a student" category then we have a major disagreement.

What if I unknowingly read content written by Claude in various articles and it influences my own writing style?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com