[IanCal]

I'm totally happy having huge amounts of my use of llms identifiable as from an llm. I don't see many important cases for me where I need to pretend it wasn't from an llm.

I will happily lose those cases for increased performance, that's the thing I care about.

Are there normal cases where you picture this as an issue?

[eitland]

Not a problem for me. I am not a student anymore.

And I am not against LLM output being identifiable as such. (although I think an argument could be made based on the ruling about the monkey and the camera, which IIRC would say that the copyright belongs to whoever created the situation).

But after the

1. British Post Office scandal and

2. some really high profile cases of education institutions here in Norway abusing plagiarism detectors

I do not feel ready to trust neither

1. complex software (and especially not closed sourced software) to tell us who is cheating or not

2. nor any humans ability to use such a system in a sensible way

While cheating isn't usually criminal court, students also usually does not get a free defense.

For this reason I suggest cheating should have to be proven to have occurred, not "suggested to probably have occurred" by the same people who creates the not very reliable and extremely hard-to-reproduce LLMs.

[danielmarkbruce]

Increased performance? Watermarking will not increase performance. They are talking about tilting the decoding process in minor ways. It won't help (or hurt much) performance.

[IanCal]

Increased relevant to other providers of different llms. So I'd pick watermarked X over non-watermarked y if x performs better than Y.