A gentle, visual walk through how a statistical mark hides inside generated text, and what erases it.

From the folks at NOPE, as a companion to declaude.

A watermark in plain text sounds impossible. Text has no pixels to hide data in, and no metadata survives copy-and-paste; every character is right there in front of you. Where could a mark possibly go?

And yet the marks are real. Google has watermarked text from the Gemini app and web experience since 2024 (its API is, at the time of writing, a documented exception), and as of August 2026, new Claude models mark text at the model level, with earlier models being brought in behind them. They're invisible, they survive copying, and they work because they don't live in the characters at all. They live in the choices between them.

Five short steps, each with something to poke at. Nothing harder than counting.

1. Writing is a series of small choices
2. A secret key leans on those choices
3. Whoever holds the key can count
4. What editing does to the mark
5. What this means in practice

1. Writing is a series of small choices

The one idea in this step: a model writes by rolling weighted dice between several words that would each be fine.

When a model is mid-sentence, it doesn't know "the next word." It has a shortlist, like autocomplete, with preferences. Here's a real kind of moment, one word from the end of a sentence:

A page of text contains hundreds of these little forks, one per word, and at many of them several options are equally fine. That slack is the raw material. Whoever gets to lean on how the dice land can hide a pattern in the text without changing what it says.

2. A secret key leans on those choices

The one idea in this step: the key secretly colours the shortlist and gives one colour a gentle nudge. The text still reads normally.

Here is the classic recipe (Kirchenbauer 2023; Google's SynthID reaches the same end by a subtler, tournament-style route). At each fork, secret-keyed maths splits the candidate words into green and red, an arbitrary colouring only the key-holder can reproduce. Then the dice get tilted a little toward green.

Two things make this sneaky. The nudge is mild: a red word can still win, it's just a little less likely. And the colouring is not a fixed property of the word: the key computes it from a short run of the words just before, so the same candidate is green after one prefix and red after another:

(Two siblings, same principle. Google's SynthID (the one in production) replaces the nudge with a tiny secret tournament: a few candidates are drawn from the model's own odds, the key scores them, and the bracket is arranged so that, averaged over the key's draws, every word's odds stay exactly what the model intended. Aaronson's scheme, built at OpenAI, skips even that and derives the dice-rolls themselves from the key. Different maths, same principle: the mark lives in the choices.)

3. Whoever holds the key can count

The one idea in this step: with the key, you can re-colour any text and simply count. Marked text lands green too often to be luck.

Detection doesn't read the text or judge its style. The detector replays the key-holder's colouring over the words and counts how many came up green. Without a mark (or without the right key), green should win about half the time. A coin flip. Here's an ordinary-looking paragraph; try both keys on it:

Note how demanding the bar is. This paragraph is visibly tilted and still too short to flag. Detectors are tuned so that false alarms are vanishingly rare; the price is that short, edited, or weakly marked text is often missed, and 55 words of a mild lean isn't enough evidence. Press keep reading: the lean stays exactly the same while the bar slides down to meet the growing evidence. Length is part of the test. (And this demo's tilt is drawn strong so you can see it; a production mark leans far more gently and needs correspondingly more text. In this demo's 50/50 model, a 1,500-word document would flag at only ~55% green: small leans become persuasive only through length, which is why short texts are genuinely hard to call, for anyone.)

4. What editing does to the mark

The one idea in this step: the mark lives in runs of untouched wording. Editing erases it exactly where the runs break, and nowhere else.

Each word's colouring is derived from a short run of the words just before it (one to a handful, depending on the scheme). So a position only counts as evidence if a short window of the original wording (the word plus its neighbours) survives intact.

Here is the same paragraph from step 3, at five edit depths. Drag the slider and watch the highlighted runs shrink. A highlight means that run of wording still matches the original exactly, so the detector can count there. Everything faded is new wording, where there is nothing but coin-flip noise left to count.

On real implementations (MarkLLM's KGW and EXP schemes on an open model, washed by declaude's full-rewrite route): about 0.5% of windows survive, and detector accuracy falls from essentially certain to a coin flip. The published literature agrees on the shape of this. Light or one-pass paraphrase dilutes the mark rather than deleting it; in Kirchenbauer et al.'s experiments, detection recovered given enough text, with even human paraphrase becoming detectable again after roughly 800 tokens (about 600 words). What removes the mark is re-composition that shares no runs of wording with the original.

That is why a tool that rewrites from the meaning (like declaude's full-rewrite route) is what actually erases this family of mark, and why a light pass that keeps most of the phrasing does not.

One boundary stated plainly: those numbers come from open implementations we can measure. Anthropic's production scheme is undisclosed, so no one outside Anthropic can yet run this test against Claude's own mark. What our experiments support is the mechanism, for the family of schemes this page describes.

5. What this means in practice

The one idea in this step: detection is private, probabilistic, and about processing, not authorship.

• Only the key-holder can check. Your teacher, editor, or favourite "AI detector" website cannot run this test; an authentic check needs the provider's secret key, or a checking service the provider runs. Google runs an early-access detector portal for SynthID; Anthropic says detection tooling is forthcoming.
• A watermark check is not an "AI detector." Tools like GPTZero guess from style and are famously unreliable. A watermark is the opposite: a deliberate, key-gated statistical test. Don't let the two blur.
• A found mark means "processed by," not "written by." Anthropic's own documentation notes that human text merely proofread or translated by Claude picks up the mark. And absence proves even less: old models, short passages, or heavy editing all yield clean results on genuine AI text.
• Short and low-choice text carries little mark. Evidence grows with length, and text with only one right continuation (code, quotations, lists of facts) offers the dice too little slack to hide anything in.
• Certain marks outlive a rewrite. Schemes keyed on the word itself rather than its neighbours hold up far better: a same-meaning rewrite keeps enough of the words that much of the mark survives. (Their weakness is different: a colouring reused everywhere can be reverse-engineered from enough output.) Others hide in the meaning, and a same-meaning rewrite partly preserves them. Those are a different problem.
• Production parameters are unpublished (context length, key structure, thresholds), so everything here describes the family of schemes, not any specific deployment.

Written by James Padolsey at NOPE as an accompaniment to declaude. The interactive figures are a teaching model with illustrative parameters, not any provider's actual scheme.

Sources & further reading. Kirchenbauer et al., A Watermark for Large Language Models (ICML 2023) · Dathathri et al., Scalable watermarking for identifying LLM outputs (SynthID-Text, Nature 2024) · Aaronson & Kirchner, Watermarking GPT outputs (2022) · Kirchenbauer et al., On the Reliability of Watermarks for Large Language Models (ICLR 2024) · Sadasivan et al., Can AI-Generated Text be Reliably Detected? (2023) · Zhao et al., The Mark Fades: Adaptive Evolutionary Paraphrase-based Attack (ACL Findings 2026) · Anthropic, How Claude marks AI-generated content (Help Center, Aug 2026) · Our own known-key experiments: re-composition collapses KGW/EXP detection to chance (AUC 0.99 → ≈0.5), context-free unigram marks survive (0.73–0.84); outline-level regeneration is the only answer we know for meaning-space marks.

For the specialist: the residual-evidence model behind the step-4 verdict is z ≈ f·√N·z₁ (surviving fraction f, document length N, per-token strength z₁). The figures count words; real detectors count the model's own tokenizer's tokens. Same shape.