[ExI] Claude's text output it's now watermarked

[Adrian Tymes]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2026 at 10:32 AM Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> On 24/08/2026 10:34, BillK wrote:
> > I see that the intention is to distinguish AI output from human output.
> > But this could add to the current confusion around AI's legal status.
> > At present, AI cannot be a legal "person", so it cannot be punished,
> > fined or jailed for misbehaviour.
> > When AI agents run wild and attack websites, the owners of the AIs
> > say, "Not me, officer. It was the AI that did it."
> > If Claude AI produces dangerous medical advice or makes libellous
> > statements, the user will say, "It wasn't me - Claude said that."
> > The legal profession needs to catch up with the speed of AI development.
> > (Perhaps they can ask AI to help with that).  ��
>
> I don't think the real reason that AI cannot be punished, fined or jailed for misbehaviour is due to its legal status.
>
> Think about it.

There are ways to punish even something incorporeal such as AI.

Even if your typical LLM would be unaware (at least for long) that it
is being punished, unless it was constantly told that it was...and
even that wouldn't be much of a punishment.

This in turn causes/is encoded into its legal status - in much the
same way that minors aren't held responsible for, or legally punished
for, things that most minors have no ability to understand in the way
adults understand them.  (Consider, for instance: "I hugged him and
then he fell down.  Yes, I had the knife in my hand when I hugged him.
It was covered in red stuff afterward so I washed it off, 'cause I'm a
good kid who doesn't leave dirty things lying around.")  The legal
status can be considered a shorthand for the true reason.