Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j5fdv9z wrote

Reply to comment by BitterAd9531 in [D] Couldn't devs of major GPTs have added an invisible but detectable watermark in the models? by scarynut

[removed]

−16

hey_look_its_shiny t1_j5fnyt6 wrote

I'm not OP, but the words "won't work in the long term" from their original statement are not synonymous with "useless".

Your original comment was disrespectful, and while you have raised some valid points along the way, they're collectively misaligned with the original statement you were responding to. You've been fighting a strawman, and it shows in how the community received your comments.

16

[deleted] t1_j5fqkim wrote

[removed]

−2

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5gdo2x wrote

Wrong. I didn't read anything past your 2nd wall of text on this post, but maybe you should use a LLM to argue with people online, it looks like it could save you hours of time and effort.

6

[deleted] t1_j5gdsob wrote

[removed]

−2

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5geex3 wrote

Wrong. Mentions LLM.

5

[deleted] t1_j5gf9jo wrote

[removed]

−2

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5gh0s1 wrote

Wrong.

4

hellrail t1_j5x5u8o wrote

And what exactly is wrong about the statement?

1

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5xqz3k wrote

The guy was just being obnoxious hence all the deleted comments and starting his replies with "wrong." before writing huge walls of text

1

hellrail t1_j5xsq46 wrote

Ah, so there was nothing wrong in my statement but you just wanted to be obnoxious?

Good that you admit it.

PS: im the guy haha

1

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5xworg wrote

I have no idea what you wrote it didn't bother me enough to remember it all this time later, if you made a new account just to come back to your old arguments that's really sad dude, I hope you can better yourself and have a good life

1

hellrail t1_j5xwq72 wrote

Wrong. Its the very same account.

And in your previous answer, when u thought i was sb different, you already explained why you did it, now you claim to not remember. Hahaha. You are contradictory and nonsense as usual.

1

its_ya_boi_Santa t1_j5xwuc9 wrote

The sentiment still stands, I hope you get out of this rut your in. "This too shall pass" as they say.

1

hellrail t1_j5y0ok5 wrote

Wrong, I am not in any rut.

New accounts, being in a rut, saying wrong just for the sake of saying something eventhough nothing was wrong....

If i look at your behaviour it clearly shows that you are fighting your own inner demons instead of really replying to what somebody has said (otherwise u wouldnt put so much of self-fantasized allegations in your posting).

I hope this kind of self-therapy works out for you, but i doubt it helps with anything.

1

hey_look_its_shiny t1_j5fu53q wrote

You don't need to implement a full-scale LLM in order to degrade watermarks at scale or even mix-and-match watermarked inputs. People who aren't even trying get halfway there now with crappy synonym engines.

And before you ask, no, I'm not going to technically spec it for you. Instead I suggest using the upvote pattern from this expert community to run backprop on your beliefs. ;)

5

[deleted] t1_j5fv06l wrote

[removed]

−2

BitterAd9531 t1_j5g52os wrote

>Besides that, OP stated that he wants to use a llm for this, not me.

Actually I didn't. If you read my comment you'd understand I would need the LLM to demonstrate the model that does the actual combining (which obviously wouldn't be an LLM). Seeing as there are currently no models that have watermarking, I'd have to write one myself to test the actual model that does the combining to circumvent the watermark. Either you didn't understand this, or you're once again taking single sentences out of context and making semi-valid points that don't have any relevancy to the orignal discussion.

But honestly I feel like this is completely besides the point. I've given you a high-level explanation of how these watermarks can be defeated and you seem to be the only one who does not understand how they work.

4

hey_look_its_shiny t1_j5htrp4 wrote

> Besides that, OP stated that he wants to use a llm for this, not me.

Actually, you introduced that concept first when you said:

> If u want some AI to alter the text for you, you again need a LLM.

OP had not mentioned applying an LLM to the case prior to that. It was explicit in their original comment, and implicit in all comments thereafter, that a watermark-free LLM was only one of the ways in which this problem could be tackled.

Meanwhile:

> Synonym engines wouldnt change an n-gram watermarks significantly enough as a synonym is the same type of word so there are token patterns persisting.

Right. Hence why I said they "get halfway there". Halfway is clearly not "all the way", and thus not "significantly enough".

And finally:

> Rules for r/MachineLearning > 1. Be nice: no offensive behavior, insults or attacks

In light of your recent description of an interlocutor's "limited capacity brain", you seem to be catastrophically failing at (1) understanding the problem space being discussed, (2) understanding the deficiencies in your own arguments, and (3) understanding basic norms and rules of interpersonal decency....

Just my two cents, but this forum probably isn't the right space for you until you level up a bit.

2