2Sep 21 7:33 PM · 2d ago · 1 post · 2 comments · 2 sources · development 2 of 4
Early Hacker News replies push back on the terminology itself, arguing invisible watermarking is not inherently malicious and citing benign precedents like counterfeit-note detection.
“I'm not convinced spymark is better than just "invisible watermarks", spymark to my ears sounds designed to sound very negative when invisible watermarks are not always negative”
pavo-etc
GoogleDeveloper of SynthIDOpenAIDeveloper of similar tracking/watermarking systemspossibilisticHacker News submitter of the essayminimaxirHN commenter, tool developer
The whole story articlespostscommentsthe bright band is this development · numbered dots are the others · click one to jump
I'm not convinced spymark is better than just "invisible watermarks", spymark to my ears sounds designed to be sound very negative when invisible watermarks are not always negative, e.g. the counterfeit bank note example.Tech like SynthID I see a net positive especially since it doesn't degrade text quality. I dream about a browser extension…
Weirdly the article doesn’t mention steganography. Arguably it isn’t quite the same, because the aim of steganography isn’t typically to add an identification, but something like “steganomark” would seem to be fitting.
H