Hildegard (she/her)

There is no record of this bio

  • 4 Posts
  • 868 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 7th, 2024

help-circle

  • The application process shown is clearly text based. Its not asking for images audio or video. The image and video tools you linked are designed for physical watermarks, not cryptographic ones. Its the same word, but very different in practice.

    The text watermarking is embedded into the output’s word choice. It requires large amounts of text of text to be detectable, but it is there in plain text. Word choice is shifted by a biased random number generator based on a secret key. Without the secret key held only by the company, its not possible to tell which part the watermark is.

    Most things can be circumvented. There are local models that do not watermark. But most people are lazy, most people go the simple route of copying the output of a corporate AI product. People literally publish articles that end with, “is there anything more I can do to help.”


  • That tester is old. It uses the technique of testing how predictable the text is, which is very inaccurate, especially on famous works that were in the training data. But recently, the major AI companies started watermarking their own outputs. It is now much easier to prove something is AI generated.

    The watermarks are cryptographic in nature, and they rely on a secret key to both watermark and verify. So only the AI company can run the test, but it is accurate with long enough texts.

    I’m sure its a cynical ploy to get people to upload future training data directly to the AI company’s servers, but it does mean AI is more detectable now than it was.











  • Meta analysis is actually the best class of scientific evidence. A meta analysis looks at the totality of research on the subject. Because any single study can yield different results, scientists need to do many studies. Certainty in science comes from replication. If repeated studies show the same results, those results become more certain. If a new meta analysis confirms the result of an old meta analysis, it shows the results are likely to be accurate.

    The new meta analysis included newer research. That conclusion is saying that the newer studies match the results of the old ones. That’s how science works. Nothing can be certain unless its replicable. Most science is like this. Papers are written by scientists for other scientists. Meta analysis from every field are exactly like this.

    But any study like these looking for the general case. This analysis is making limited claims with strong certainty. This study is saying that, with a great deal of certainty, CBT has a small to medium effect on most people, but not all of those who get it.

    There are many problems in medicine. You have encountered many of them.

    Its clear CBT didn’t work for you, but that in no way means that the science is wrong, or that meta analysis, as a concept, are bad science.

    The drugs that you are taking were studied in exactly the same way. There are analycies and meta analycies on their effects that will sound just as pointlessly reduntant as the one you looked at. That is the process.