47
Anthropic’s ‘Watermark’ Text Adulteration in Claude Is a Perversion of Writing
(daringfireball.net)
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2026
47 points (74.2% liked)
Technology
87627 readers
3825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There was a recent study that showed that people preferred AI writing to human writing.
The gist of the study is they took published short stories and prompted AI to write a comparable short story. They then presented the stories to a group of people, sometimes telling them which were AI written and which weren't, but sometimes they intentionally lied and said the human-written story was AI written and vice versa.
People prefer AI written stories, and unsurprising, if they have a negative view of AI, they'll rate stories they think are AI as worse, even when it's not actually written by AI.
They also performed a test to see if people could differentiate between AI and human stories, and people could only tell ~45% to 50% of the time. Essentially a guess.
Now, being better at writing short stories doesn't necessarily mean better at all forms of writing, but I think people who aren't using AI have a mental snapshot of the capabilities of AI at some point in the past and assume AI hasn't improved further since that mental snapshot was taken.
A very valuable comment compared to the author of OP's article who simply seems entitled to this cloud service?
I'm sorry, was this reply meant for me? I don't see how it fits as a response to my comment.
Yes. I was quoting some insight from the piece you linked, so it seemed appropriate to reply to your comment here.
I don't mean to be dense, but can you elaborate on what point you were trying to make in context to my comment? I still don't see what it has to do with what I said.