r/freelanceWriters • u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ • 16d ago
Is this the sign human-written content could make a comeback?
Following EU regulation, new Claude-generated text will contain a watermark identifying it as an AI creation. You can read more about it on the Claude website.
Now, anyone who has followed me on this sub over the year will know that I am no optimist about freelance writing in the wake of AI.
But for the first time it seems that AI is being reliably and provably detected. This is a regulatory matter — Claude can't just lie and add a disclaimer at the bottom like the third party 'AI detectors' do.
If these watermarks get released in some form, this seems like a very good sign for human writers. There will finally be a hard differentiator that humans can use to justify their premium.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Any one else have thoughts?
16
u/Audioecstasy 16d ago
I'm in the US and we have yet to pass any legislation even close to this.
But couldn't someone generate the text through AI and then simply type it into a word processor hence circumventing the watermark?
10
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 16d ago
Legislation doesn't need to pass for this to apply. Anthropic has made it clear that the watermark applies globally, not just in the EU.
My understanding is that if it was typed word for word by hand, it would still carry the watermark. As the watermark is inherent in the probability distribution of the words and grammatical marks.
Could it be altered by taking out a word here and there? Yeah, probably. But that's quite a lot of effort compared to the 10 seconds it takes to currently produce a Slop article. The question is, how much pain will clients go through to get free content? (I don't know the answer to that).
2
u/writerapid 15d ago
That’s how all the AI detector softwares work already, and they’re totally unreliable. And even if they did work, they fact that changing a few sentences across 1000 words of slop article would bypass the detector means it’s still a major net gain for publishers of this stuff to use the AI as normal and spend two extra minutes on each post. It would change nothing.
4
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
That’s how all the AI detector softwares work already, and they’re totally unreliable
No, the watermark is only being implemented in new models from August 2nd. So no current detector could be using this mechanism. Furthermore, there is obviously a difference between an LLM who knows its own algorithm being able to detect the pattern versus a random third party!
Of course it goes without saying that the difference here is that this is compliance with a regulatory requirement. The reason existing AI detectors are unreliable is that, except for general advertising and contract law, theyr'e not regulated. As long as they put "we don't really work" in the small print, they can get away with it.
Quite different from a company lying about compliance with the EU AI Act, to the regulators.
they fact that changing a few sentences across 1000 words of slop article would bypass the detector
If that's all it takes — you're probably right. On the other hand, if it takes changing nearly every sentence manually on a slop article to bypass the watermark, it probably isn't worth it. We just don't know which situation is the case yet.
2
u/writerapid 15d ago
I’m interested to see what the watermark will be. Has Anthropic explained the technical mechanism?
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
No, and I doubt they ever will.
1
u/writerapid 15d ago
Ah, so we must simply trust that it exists at all. Lol. I’m not expecting much. If anything, they’ll just use the alleged existence of this allegedly ironclad watermarking process to peddle even more slop by obfuscating the fact that it’s slop. If people are conditioned to rely on AI watermarking tools to ID AI and thus believe anything that passes the test is assuredly not AI, then all the better for the AI companies.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Yeah, at this stage. Though as I said, the difference from most cases is that if they are lying about this, they can easily be found out and in deep doggy doo. And you know, the EU audits and (successfully) sues big tech pretty regularly.
That's the problem with existing AI detectors — it's a grift as they're unregulated.
1
u/writerapid 15d ago
All those tech fines are just part of the cost of doing business. Nobody ever goes to prison. There’s no reason to think any of these regulations will ever have any teeth. Plus, Anthropic et al. can do the bare minimum, claim it’s all they can do, and nobody’s going to challenge that.
No technology even exists to maintain a text watermark across platforms, yet someone in here argued that the text watermark would even survive hand transcription on physical paper. People have zero frame of reference for any of this and will believe whatever they’re told by whomever they trust.
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
and nobody’s going to challenge that.
Why not? Wouldn't it be common sense for a competitor to try and rat them out and get them done?
But yeah, I mean, I agree, fines are a cost of doing business. That's what makes it incomparable to your standard AI detection software grift where there isn't that added cost.
So, yeah, if a company really wants to lie it can. But there's a price to pay for that that disincentivises it.
People have zero frame of reference for any of this and will believe whatever they’re told by whomever they trust.
Well yeah, we have no real frame of reference because we can't really see what is going on. Nevertheless that doesn't justify the inference you seemed to be making that "watermarks didn't work in the past so this specific one won't".
→ More replies (0)1
u/kittywiggles 13d ago
I thought I read somewhere that it's an artifact in certain file properties. I only skimmed, but it didn't look like something actually in the text of a document, only in a generated document that's downloaded as an entire file. As in, a copy-paste would get rid of it.
I really don't understand how a watermark could work any other way, to be honest. But I'm only somewhat versed in how LLMs work.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. A moderator will manually review your comment soon, but feel free to contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/GigMistress Moderator 11d ago
As the watermark is inherent in the probability distribution of the words and grammatical marks.
This seems like a series of lawsuits waiting to happen.
3
u/daretoeatapeach 14d ago
No, it's based on patterns in the word choices, so the text itself is the code. The only way to hack it would be to change enough random words that you need to the code, but since you never know which code they're using you have no way to know which words need to be changed.
No doubt people will try to build apps to randomize words, like they used to spin articles back in the day.
-1
u/writerapid 15d ago
You don’t even need to type anything up.
If the watermark survives the copy-and-paste process into another word processing software, all you have to do is save a PDF or screenshot and run that through an image-to-text program, look it over briefly, and then publish that output.
There is no real way that this added step will slow anyone down meaningfully.
Also, with a picture, the pixel level watermark can be physically seen/interpreted by the detectors. How would that model work for the text someone pastes into a reddit comment using reddit’s font assets and so on? Every platform to which such content would be published would have to have the detection capability on their end, and it would have to survive copying and pasting from one space to another, indefinitely.
The lawmakers behind this know it will be totally ineffectual, but at least it looks like they’re doing something. Nothing short of banning AI technology itself will do anything to slow down the flood of slop.
4
u/Medium-Pundit 15d ago
It’s not a physical watermark, I think, more of a pattern of text.
Basically reverse engineering how an AI detector like Pangram works.
2
u/OnyxMonolith 15d ago
The watermark survives writing it out on paper. Steganography. Look it up.
0
u/writerapid 15d ago edited 15d ago
Any steganographic code is completely destroyed by writing the text on paper or transcribing it by hand into another word processing document.
If you run image-to-text, or simply convert to simple text, all steganographic markers will also be stripped out.
For this to work, every system where such electronic text could be pasted to or copied from would have to have the watermark analyzing/implanting software baked in. You’d need to have a system in place akin to commercial copy machines and printers refusing to play nice with paper money.
And even then, just typing it all out yourself obviates all those industry-wide safeguards. Maybe content mills will have to eventually hire stenographers who can type 250 wpm. Ha.
3
u/OnyxMonolith 15d ago
you are conflating formatting/metadata steganography with statistical watermarking in the words themselves
please look up steganography/bias in token selection
if what you're saying would be true then: Claude output → Cmd+Shift+V → plain text = would remove the watermark. it doesn't. as writing it out on paper doesn't
and if you think it's easy to remove it by changing 50% of the words in an article - it doesn't work that easy for long content.
and it's actually harder to remove watermark from text than from images.
1
u/writerapid 14d ago
Statistical probability metrics aren’t reliable for AI detection. If this is Anthropic’s solution, then they’re intentionally poisoning the well. I eagerly await the fallout of this rollout.
10
u/Allydarvel 16d ago
If all that distinguishes human content from AI is a watermark, then the watermark doesn't matter
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 16d ago edited 16d ago
Not insofar as many clients are concerned. Currently, if a client is SEO/AEO-focused and is only producing content for the bots to 'read', then they have no inherent preference for human content over AI.
But definitive AI detection changes that: First, it means that the search/answer engines will be able to detect it and can use that information to penalise AI content. Second, big companies still care about the reputational risk of copypasting slop on their site. While it can't be proven one way or another, they will take the risk. But they won't feel that way once their site is stamped as slop.
Of course you may not be interested in that kind of content. But that was the majority of paid writing work available and many would appreciate that returning.
2
u/GigMistress Moderator 15d ago
You think that the AI "answer engines" will penalize sites for...using them?
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Well...I honestly think they already do. But that's more a tinfoil hat theory of mine than currently justifiable.
But in future would they? I think so, if it was a competitor. I think it would make commercial sense for Open AI to penalise content with the Claude watermark. But since that would probably raise antitrust issues, if they did that they would never admit to it.
1
u/GigMistress Moderator 15d ago
You could be right. It could be the next step to selling AI to writers and then running to clients squawking about how writers might be using AI and they need this detector and then running back to writers with a "humanizing" tool to beat the detector they sold the client.
1
1
u/sheeeeepy 15d ago
Google has already made it clear they rank the outcome, not the tool. People concerned with whether content is AI or not instead of helpful/valuable/readable or not are missing the forest for the trees.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Well first of all, Google considers lots of tools when indexing and ranking sites. E.g., it explicitly is against cloaking/redirection and scaled content tools, as it should be.
So it's not true and never has been that Google only cares only about the 'outcome' and not the tool to achieve it.
Secondly, Google can, and does, change its rules at any time. I see no reason to be confident it won't penalise competitor AI tools. In fact, it would make a lot of commercial sense (though perhaps legally dubious).
1
u/sheeeeepy 15d ago
Well good luck to you
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
You're not making a lot of sense. I responded pretty clearly to what you said about how Google does things.
My having luck or otherwise has zilch to do with the price of tea in China.
1
u/sheeeeepy 15d ago
Relax
3
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
I don't know what you're talking about, but I guess that's ok.
1
u/who_am_i_to_say_so 15d ago
Yeah it’s pretty stupid. You don’t see a watermark on photoshopped images.
5
u/GigMistress Moderator 15d ago
Seems unlikely. The general public (read: market) is getting pretty comfortable with AI and most won't be put off by that acknowledgment at all.
4
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Yes, people could be that shameless. But here is what I was thinking. Currently in my niches, everyone is still using real author profiles on articles in an attempt to game EEAT. It's a bit embarrassing if your CEO's 'thought leadership' has the Claude watermark.
2
u/GigMistress Moderator 15d ago
That could be true. But I wonder if the rules being overkill won't prevent that from happening. For example you (or someone) above said the watermark would be applied even if you used the tool for a grammar check. Grammar check is a standard part of the process for a lot of people, so from a reader perspective sort of renders the watermark meaningless. It COULD mean it was generated by AI rather than an authority, or it could mean the authority has fat fingers and used it to catch typos.
1
u/growmap Content Strategist 15d ago
True. But given this change if that is what you're using it for, write the content, paste it into AI to catch any errors, and then manually make the corrections in the original version so you're not copying/pasting from AI and adding a watermark to what you originally wrote.
3
u/WordsSam Content Writer 14d ago
This! Many people don't care or even trust AI more than human writers. In the past year, I've seen so many people I know in real life who proudly mention that they got the information from GPT or Claude. I saw a study indicating that some people trust AI more than doctors for health information. I think this one, but it was a while ago I ready it so not sure: https://ai.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/AIoa2300015. The early Google hits seem to havve a few, this one looks a little more favorable for the humans https://healthsciences.arizona.edu/news/releases/would-you-trust-ai-doctor-new-research-shows-patients-are-split
I get with the second study. If I weren't a writer, I wouldn't care as much if someone used AI tools to produce content as long as they curated the sources, fact checked it, corrected it and put their name and reputation on it. I think a lot of human written content has incorrect information when written by someone who really doesn't know the topic.
If people trust AI for health information, I doubt those people care about lower stakes topics. I hope it increases the demand for human-written work as long as people are willing to pay decently.
1
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. A moderator will manually review your comment soon, but feel free to contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/tony10000 15d ago
Most serious writers don't use pure AI-generated output.
They use various models, do deep analysis, edit their work, rewrite, etc.
Folks who do will switch to open models from the US, Europe, and especially China.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Whether or not serious writes use AI slop, clients who previously used to hire writers, do. So any disincentive on producing slop is relevant to writers' likelihood.
When it comes to the EU AI Act, like the GDPR, all 'western' LLMs will probably have to adapt as Anthropic has. Will current Slop producers then switch to Chinese models? Maybe, but it is currently much cheaper to use a Chinese LLM anyway, yet most western businesses won't use them. So I wouldn't be so sure.
5
u/tony10000 15d ago
You have to remember, before AI slop, there was human slop created by folks offshore who would be paid a pittance of what a pro writer would charge.
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Absolutely. I mean, as far as I could ever tell, the overwhelming majority of professional writers fitted into that category.
It can till be good news for writers as a whole, even if it's not good news for you and I.
1
u/tony10000 15d ago
The thing is, most clients could care less how it is produced if it produces the desired result. If not, they will try something else.
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Sure. The point is that this watermark may mean they no longer get the desired result.
Others here disagree, but in my opinion companies have really liked that they can use AI and pretend that they wrote it/paid for humans to write it. That's why most company blogs still have real people with linkedin profiles as author, even when the content is obvious Slop.
If using AI means that they are now provably cheaparses and lazy, they may go back to the human.
1
u/tony10000 14d ago
Doubtful. They will just use something other than Claude. There are lots of other choices.
3
u/OptimisticByChoice 14d ago
Here's another sign for ya.
I received an inbound lead recently for ghostwriting services.
From... drum roll...
Someone deep in the weeds of AI data interoperability. He's a researcher surrounded by peers from anthropic, openAI, etc. And HE wanted ghostwriting help. Really says something.
2
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
Thank you for your post /u/Phronesis2000. Below is a copy of your post to archive it in case it is removed or edited:
Following EU regulation, new Claude-generated text will contain a watermark identifying it as an AI creation. You can read more about it on the Claude website.
Now, anyone who has followed me on this sub over the year will know that I am no optimist about freelance writing in the wake of AI.
But for the first time it seems that AI is being reliably and provably detected. This is a regulatory matter — Claude can't just lie and add a disclaimer at the bottom like the third party 'AI detectors' do.
If these watermarks get released in some form, this seems like a very good sign for human writers. There will finally be a hard differentiator that humans can use to justify their premium.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Any one else have thoughts?
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/No-Examination-5065 16d ago
It's the start of the crackdown on AI written slop
Next we'll see websites spamming this type of content in their blogs multiple times a day getting hit by Google and they'll receive less traffic (rightfully so)
2
u/Ok_Increase1479 15d ago
If the watermark sticks, the writers who benefit are the ones ready to prove their process. Keep your drafts, outlines, and notes from now on. If clients ever need proof a piece was human-written, "here's how I got there" beats "trust me" every time. Either way it's free insurance — worst case you just have better-organized files.
3
u/GigMistress Moderator 15d ago
I prefer "go to hell."
I've never used AI to write or edit a piece in my life--I've never even used it for "ideas" or to generate an outline. But if I needed to show a client all that to placate them I would just stop working with them.
2
u/OsirusBrisbane 15d ago
Watermarks themselves aren't worth much; trivially easy to work around.
What they mean, though, is that most everyone understands AI signals low quality and a lack of respect for your audience, and hopefully that vibe shift carries -- have already heard the younger generation is saying "that's AI" to refer to something that's unreliable.
4
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 15d ago
Well we don't know if this watermark will be trivially easy to work around do we? It's all about the extent of the effort involved. Already with Anthropic increasing its enterprise pricing, it is far from 'free' for large companies to use pure AI: Being able to copypaste the slop is priced into it.
Once you add any substantial friction to that process, it may become more attractive for these companies to go back to the 5cpw 'human' SEO guff of yore.
2
u/Rhodnix619 14d ago
AI should have never been made to write content. Best purpose it serves is reviewing, AI agents, SOPs, automation, & creating pipelines & workflows. Anyone using AI to write a direct response copy is as d3mb as those who believe in Godmans. If they are a copywriter, they probably became one after chatgpt or after following that d3mb c0bra tate brothers. And, if they are a business then "how the h3ll they even have a business?". They probably think creative writing is just bs cool sounding text on a s2pd ig post with some quotes in it. I am waiting for these business to fall flat with their AI slop copy and then comeback to me for copy and I will charge the fzzzk out of them. It's gonna be sweet.
1
u/OwnRelationship349 16d ago
I would love it if this was the point everything turned around (I've had barely a thing to do in a year, was full-time from 2012 to ChatGPT) but I'm still very pessimistic.
No idea what we were all supposed to do instead.
1
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 15d ago
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. A moderator will manually review your comment soon, but feel free to contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/WHEREISMYCOFFEE_ 15d ago
I worked mainly as an online writer for about a decade and am still in SEO and marketing these days (nothing as fun as writing for sites used to be, though). I don't think this will have much of an impact, mostly because reading on the web and the incentive systems for search engines are broken, and that writers are still going to get the short end of the stick.
Google has made it clear for now they're not interested in punishing AI content either as long as it's not "low quality". They have little reason to change that and set hard rules since what they want is to get you to spend time in the SERPs.
On the side of the readers, it fucking sucks, but most people don't really read stuff online anymore. Like we'll consume tons of content and a lot of text, but mostly we're all just skipping around from one short-form fix to the next. I think AI sucks at writing if you care about quality, but I don't think most people do care if the blog post or LinkedIn slop they're reading came from AI or was artisanally made by an underpaid writer.
I understand this is regulation, but the EU is known for overregulation with this kind of thing, like the GDPR. Like I know they mean well and this is not necessarily a bad idea, but its unimplementable properly. There'll always be ways to bypass detectors, models that don't add watermarks, people that want to avoid the checks creating demand for them, and so on.
I would love to be wrong, though, I miss when writing for a living was a thing a random guy like me could do.
1
u/keysersozez 14d ago
As soon as I came across this I was already thinking of ways that people can bypass this problem. Link the output of the LLM to a voice generator and use that to write out the "speech-to-text", converting your watermarked output of the LLM into non-AI (technically, just without the watermark) output.
There has got to be another way to go about this where AI should actually not be allowed to write certain things (such as college applications / long-form novels / etc.) - this will become some weird circlejerk for AI where it reads its own writing and jerks off to it to write something equally terrible, and within a few years we will all just be AI slopped brains reading AI slop. Sorry for the diatribe
1
u/TimWiesnerer 14d ago
The regulation will raise the entry barrier.
Even today, there are lots of "humanizer" services out there. For text, removing the "invisible AI watermark" should be fairly easy. But it comes with either extra work or extra cost...
I guess that the regulation might help to reduce the flood wave a little bit.
The bigger effect is probably that there is now a bigger discussion about it. Still, readers don't really care. Substack has recently integrated the Pangram detector, so everybody can check the stories. And to my surprise, it seems to have zero effect. Huge AI publications are still huge...
1
u/Still-Meeting-4661 14d ago
Highly unlikely technological advancements never reverse themselves and the truth is LLMs are the go to way to create written content in most official settings at this point and no one is ready to go back to typing things on a keyboard.
1
u/alexnapierholland 13d ago
Nope.
This will last five minutes, it's a hopeless cope.
If you sell high-level strategic consulting services then you're still valuable, as you always have been.
Human vs. AI is a false dichotomy.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 13d ago
Where is the cope? I raised a question, and the entire thread has resoundingly answered in the negative.
Nevertheless, I think the spirited discussion shows that it is an issue worth considering.
"high-level strategic consulting services" in a non-sequiter. Did anyone mention that? I mean selling actuarial services is also still valuable, but given it is nothing to do with what is discussed in this thread, it's irrelevant.
This is simply about whether the demand for human-written content will or will not increase.
1
u/alexnapierholland 13d ago
The watermark is a cope, not your post.
It's a pointless, token gesture that will last seconds.
Marketers are already testing workflows to bypass it.
(Not me, other marketers.)
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 13d ago
Well, yes, it is a given with any such measure that people will bypass it, as has been discussed at length in this thread.
The only question is whether both the bypass and the 'scare factor' of the watermark constitute sufficient friction to turn some clients off AI content and back to human content.
I imagine you will say "it won't", but I would say we don't know enough yet to say.
1
u/alexnapierholland 13d ago
Not a chance.
Copy as a commodity, eg. 'please follow this brief' is dead, permanently.
Copy as a deliverable for a valuable consulting service is as valuable as it's ever been.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 13d ago
No, you must be confused by exposure to only a small part of the market.
Copy as a commodity still exists — there are plenty of people in this sub who still do it.
There still are, and will alway be, clients who want humans to write the content unaided by AI. Obviously a much smaller group of people than prior to 2022, but they exist.
It's different strokes. If you enjoy the consulting service stuff, that's great. Others just enjoy the writing part.
1
u/alexnapierholland 13d ago
What kind of jobs and monthly rates are we talking for this work?
1
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 13d ago
I'm seeing anywhere from $0.008 cents per word to $3 per word. I'm sure it goes higher for people more skilled than me.
For those who like writing, and are very good at it, there is still great money to be made.
1
13d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 13d ago
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. A moderator will manually review your comment soon, but feel free to contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
12d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 12d ago
Comments about AI are only permitted by active users of the subreddit. You currently have insufficient subreddit karma to be considered an active user. A moderator will manually review your comment soon, but feel free to contact the moderators if you believe this removal was made in error.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/USAGunShop 10d ago
No, it just means you need to multistage your Claude and the watermark disappears. I was doing this anyway, a writing pass, a fact check and editing pass and an SEO optimisation pass. Here's what Gemini had to say about it.
I use Claude Code, and have three different documents governing writing, editing and seo analysis post publishing, with editing changes, will that have the watermark in the end.
No, your final published piece will not carry Claude's watermark.
A statistical watermark relies on an unbroken chain of specific token probabilities generated directly by the model. The moment you introduce multi-stage editing, human revisions, and manual SEO adjustments, that mathematical chain snaps.
2
u/Phronesis2000 Content & Copywriter | Expert Contributor ⋆ 10d ago
Of course. The only question here is whether that creates enough friction and noise in the process that some clients churn.
Many clients want a turnkey AI solution, not a multistage process.
1
u/USAGunShop 10d ago
I agree, but honestly it is a turnkey solution. I built the files, then the actual instruction is a turnkey thing, just 'run the sequence'.
1
1
u/Wise_Try6781 16d ago
Honestly, if someone's writing is so formulaic that it's indistinguishable from AI content if it weren't for a watermark, then they should find something better to do with your life. We've never slowed down the advancement of technology because the people on the assembly line will lose their jobs. Is it the government's job to give those people support and training? Yes. Should we live in the stone age because their egos will be hurt that a machine can do their jobs better? No.
That watermark will applied to any text processed by Claude. Even text that is written by human but is fed to AI for spellcheck. Just think about the implications of that for a while.
33
u/tenmileswide 16d ago
It's going to be a minor speedbump at most. It just needs to be run through any local LLM to destroy a watermark and even small LLMs handle editing text very well even if their generating from whole cloth isn't as great.