I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
-
I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
You know I might be wrong, but what is wrong with watermarks?
@futurebird that doesn't surprise me, I think the only thing she really cares about is climbing the ladder of self promotion. I blocked her years ago because o got a bad vibe from her, she has more in common with Bari Weiss or Glenn Greenwald than a real journalist
-
I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
You know I might be wrong, but what is wrong with watermarks?
@futurebird I don't like the idea of watermarking because it's going to allow companies to make money in the slop creation and the slop detection sides of things - anyone who wants to detect AI will need to pay EVERY AI Company to check against their own watermarking keys, which means only the rich will be able to detect slop. Plus from what I have read detecting the slop is as computationally expensive as producing the slop in the first place, so it could double the impacts we are seeing.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
@futurebird I don't like the idea of watermarking because it's going to allow companies to make money in the slop creation and the slop detection sides of things - anyone who wants to detect AI will need to pay EVERY AI Company to check against their own watermarking keys, which means only the rich will be able to detect slop. Plus from what I have read detecting the slop is as computationally expensive as producing the slop in the first place, so it could double the impacts we are seeing.
@futurebird none of this has anything to do with being tracked, or being exposed as a fraud or whatever. I just hate that companies get to make money to make the mess AND to be the "savior" who cleans it up
-
I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
You know I might be wrong, but what is wrong with watermarks?
@futurebird@sauropods.win I gotta watch the video first but what did she say that makes you think that?
-
I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
You know I might be wrong, but what is wrong with watermarks?
@futurebird I've never gotten "shill" off her, but her leaning into youtuber stereotypes really put me off her reporting, which I used to quite enjoy.
-
@futurebird@sauropods.win I gotta watch the video first but what did she say that makes you think that?
The negative take on AI watermarking surprised me. That's all. Watermarks seem responsible?
-
@pbloem @futurebird all I hear is "Praise Sam & Dario" on repeat.
@jwcph @futurebird I know. It's not what I'm saying or thinking though.
-
Let me outline my understanding of "LLM Watermarking"
It is possible to embed special characters and patterns in the output of LLMs that would make text generated by these systems easier to reliably detect. This is mainly being done so that when LLMs scrape the web for new information they can avoid ingesting machine generated content.**
When you train an LLM on machine generated content it may lead to "model collapse."
**see next post for correction
@futurebird My (weak) understanding of AI Text watermarking is that they tweak the probabilities of words in certain positions so they're more likely to line up with complex watermark patterns.
I wonder if that will make their already noticeable style more or less recognizable.
I'll take their word for it that the watermark patterns aren't humanly detectable, but the fact that they're deliberately choosing slightly non-optimal words and phrases must have an effect?
-
I said I *didn't* think Taylor Lorenz was an industry shill but... wow... now I'm starting to rethink that.
You know I might be wrong, but what is wrong with watermarks?
@futurebird the comments. the comments are fucking beautiful
-
@futurebird My (weak) understanding of AI Text watermarking is that they tweak the probabilities of words in certain positions so they're more likely to line up with complex watermark patterns.
I wonder if that will make their already noticeable style more or less recognizable.
I'll take their word for it that the watermark patterns aren't humanly detectable, but the fact that they're deliberately choosing slightly non-optimal words and phrases must have an effect?
I'm confident they can do this without it having a noticeable impact. It's just garbage text, and it will still be garbage text even if you hide a pattern in it.
But a good thing about the issue of watermarking is perhaps talking about it might make people think about what other kinds of "weights" might apply to LLM generated content.
I have seen liberals and leftists say "Grok is that correct?" and I am baffled how they can be so critical of Mr. Musk but still trust his bot.
