HackerTube

Ch(e)at GPT? - Computerphile

Computerphile1 HN recommender · recommended in 1 month, 2023–2026
YouTube
explainer · intermediate · evergreen · 2023–2026 on HN

Computerphile video in which Mike Pound explains a University of Maryland paper on watermarking LLM output. The method biases token choices so generated text can later be detected statistically.

Linked as the approachable explanation whenever HN discusses detecting or watermarking AI-generated text.

6 comments from Hacker News

@kimburgess2023-02 · in “ShareGPT: Share your ChatGPT conversations with one click”

Watermarking. From an outsiders perspective, the issue appears to reaching consensus on how this can be implemented (but not in the technical sense). There's a game theoretic challenge in that if models define and publish detection mechanisms, this creates a motivation for people to use other systems that don't include this. On the technical front there's a good paper here: link , and a nice very approachable video explaining it here: ▶ this video .

Recommends View on HN
@m-chrzan2026-08 · in “How Claude marks AI-generated content”

There's a computerphile video ( ▶ this video ) with Dr. Mark Pound explaining a paper by John Kirchenbauer, Jonas Geiping et al. ( link ) that described a method for watermarking LLM output like this. It's not directly stated anywhere in the Claude support article that this is what they're using, but the properties of the watermark described seem to point to this method.

@Zambyte2024-07 · in “Meta Launches AI Studio in US”

I wonder if they have a watermark built in that allows them to detect text generated by Llama easily. ▶ this video link

@rjmunro2023-05 · in “GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers”

There's an interesting scheme described here: ▶ this video Essentially by biasing the LLM's token choices slightly you can infer with high probability later that the text was generated by it.

@stcg2023-03 · in “Research shows we can only accurately identify AI writers about 50% of the time”

I think watermarking is a better solution. There is a paper on it: Kirchenbauer, J., Geiping, J., Wen, Y., Katz, J., Miers, I., & Goldstein, T. (2023). A watermark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.10226. ( link ) Also, Computerphile did a video on it: ▶ this video But of course, watermarking or your proposed solution (checksums) only work while the general public cannot run a tool like ChatGPT locally on personal computers. And it's only a matter of time before that happens. So in the long run, we need to either: 1. take away control from the users over their personal computers, in the form of what I would call 'AI DRM' (I strongly oppose this option), or 2. legislate: enforce a legal obligation to disclose that a text is not created by a human, or 3. accept that we cannot know whether or not a text is written by a human, and work with that reality