I mean results steadily improving, regardless of method.

Why are these things doomed just because they are advancing?

The ffmpeg example is worth it alone

.. yes?

This would be trivially defeated by making tiny changes to the text. Also it is wildly impractical and won't scale up to wide spread usage.

This will be a permanent arms race of training the generative model and the detector to defeat one another, with each iteration making it harder and harder for humans to do so unaided. Training these models is expensive and only the big corporate players are currently able to do so.

One thing i can imagine is that the AI refuses to output text that doesn't trigger the watermark detector.

This is the current state of things. With sufficient training data we can identify a lot about who wrote some text from the statistical properties of the text itself and voice has a long history of being used for identification at this point.

It's the same meaning.

They aren't doing that. We're doing that.

Is there a canonical introductory paper on TMs?

Didn't the Greeks try this? It's a mess until you have an epiphany and realize that you have to verify the truth of a statement before you start building on top of it.

I didn't even realize this was a demo until it got to the piano and i noticed the "generated" text. This thing is crazy