内容来源：https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/12/some-claude-users-are-mad-that-anthropics-new-watermarks-will-catch-them-cheating-at-their-jobs-classes/

内容总结：

近日，人工智能公司Anthropic宣布对其聊天机器人Claude的文本输出内容添加数字水印，即嵌入不可见的AI生成标记。此举旨在满足欧盟《人工智能法案》的透明度要求，该法案规定科技公司须以计算机可识别的方式标注AI生成或编辑的内容。然而，尽管欧洲监管机构对此表示认可，部分AI用户却表达了强烈不满。

在Reddit论坛上，用户对这项新政策的争论尤为激烈。一位名为visionode的用户发帖称，水印系统是“严苛的阴谋”，旨在“迫害”全球无辜的聊天机器人用户。他认为，精通技术的用户或许能通过改写或借助其他AI服务清除水印痕迹，但普通用户将难以幸免——“被抓的是你：用Claude重组段落的学生，让AI总结两百页笔录的记者，因创意枯竭而求取同义词的作家。这些人出门时额头上仿佛被贴了数字纹身。”

然而，这一观点并未获得广泛认同。有网友回怼称，记者若将AI总结直接复制进文章，或学生将AI输出原封不动写入论文，本身就有违职业道德，水印暴露的并非无辜受害，而是不当使用。另有用户评论道：“看看这位老兄”“深呼吸一下吧”。

也有批评者从其他角度提出质疑。有人称水印制度“不道德”“令人反感”，并辩称自己才是创作主体：“我提供了指示、背景、决策和无数修改，Claude只是工具。如果它开始给我的代码或内容打水印，它到底在宣称什么功劳？”但随即有用户反驳：“它并没有宣称功劳，而是为了识别AI生成的输出，以防范其在各种情境下可能带来的风险。”还有人调侃：“这位老兄连抱怨Claude的帖子都是靠Claude写的吧。”

部分反对者则提出了更为细致的论点。一名用户指出，前沿模型本是通过抓取他人作品获得训练数据，如今又对生成内容加水印，无疑具有反讽意味，是“极其险恶的方向”。尽管如此，多数网友仍支持水印机制，认为这是追踪算法生成材料的合理手段。另一位用户直言：“这根本不存在反对的充分理由，你不想被标记的唯一原因，就是想对别人撒谎。”

中文翻译：

Anthropic最近决定对Claude的输出内容添加水印——在这款聊天机器人生成的文本中植入不可见的代码，用以标记其为AI生成内容。

Anthropic推出这一新政策是为了满足《欧盟人工智能法案》的透明度准则，该准则现在要求科技公司以计算机系统可识别的方式标注AI生成或编辑的内容。然而，尽管欧洲监管机构可能对此感到满意，一些AI用户却显然不太买账。

只需看看Reddit就能找到不满情绪正在酝酿的证据，不过该网站上的其他发帖者并不认同这些抱怨。我看到的其中一篇较为夸张的帖子来自一位名叫visionode的用户，值得注意的是，这个账号注册仅三周。按照visionode的说法，新的水印系统是一场专横的阴谋，旨在迫害全球无辜的聊天机器人用户。

Visionode的基本论点似乎是，虽然精明的Claude用户或许能够通过改写或借助其他AI服务清理输出来隐藏使用AI的痕迹，但普通Claude用户会被抓住。

“谁会被抓？是你。那个用Claude重新组织段落的学生。那个让AI总结一份两百页记录稿的记者。那个遇到创作瓶颈、向AI求同义词的作家。这些人出来时额头上就像被盖了一个数字纹身。”

我无意贬损visionode的愤怒，但这些例子实在算不上恰当。一个让AI总结两百页记录稿的记者，不会因为那段总结上有个水印就感到困扰——除非他们把总结逐字复制粘贴进自己的文章里——而那显然是不道德的，本就不该发生。

同样，一个学生让Claude“重新组织段落”后，把输出内容直接复制粘贴进论文，也是不道德的。

其他Reddit用户对这位发帖者的愤怒也并不特别认同。

“看看这家伙，”一位发帖者只评论了这么一句。

另一位则让楼主“深呼吸”。

Visionode并不是唯一抱怨的人。另一位不满的用户称水印“不道德”且“令人恶心”，并辩称自己使用Claude已经完成了绝大部分工作。在他们看来，聊天机器人只是一个协助自己辛苦劳动的“工具”。

“我提供了指令、背景、决策和无数次的修改，Claude只是一个工具。如果Claude开始给代码或其他任何它生成的内容加水印，它到底想宣称什么功劳？”这位发帖者问道。

同样，其他用户也对这位批评者进行了围攻。

“它并没有宣称功劳，”一位用户反驳道。“这是为了能够检测AI生成的内容，因为AI生成的内容在各种情境下可能带来风险。”

“这位老兄连抱怨Claude都是让Claude帮他写的，”另一位打趣道。

一些批评者则避开了“受害者”叙事，对Anthropic的新政策提出了稍加细致的反对意见。

例如，一位发帖者抱怨说，给一个本身就是通过抓取他人作品而生成的编辑产物加水印，这是一种整体上的虚伪。“我认为这是一个非常危险的方向，”该用户说。“我不用Claude写任何东西，但考虑到前沿模型中有多少是靠训练数据起家的，让人工智能给作品加水印实在是一种令人不寒而栗的讽刺。”

不过总体而言，用户们倾向于支持水印系统，认为这是追踪算法生成材料的合理方式。“对于为什么这不是个好主意，根本没有任何站得住脚的理由，”另一位帖子下的用户说。“你不想这样做的唯一原因，就是你想对别人撒谎。”

英文来源：

Anthropic recently made the decision to watermark Claude’s outputs — inserting invisible code into the chatbot’s editorial text that marks it as AI-generated.
Anthropic rolled out this new policy to satisfy the EU AI Act’s Transparency Code, which now requires tech companies to label content that has been AI-generated or edited in a manner identifiable to computer systems. Yet while European regulators may be happy, some AI users are decidedly not.
One need look no further than Reddit to find evidence of brewing discontent, though other posters on the site are not in agreement. One of the more histrionic posts I came across was from a user named visionode, whose account is notably only three weeks old. According to visionode, the new watermarking system is a draconian conspiracy designed to victimize innocent chatbot users worldwide.
Visionode’s basic argument appears to be that, while savvy Claude users may be able hide evidence of their AI usage by paraphrasing or otherwise cleaning their outputs through other AI services, the average user of Claude will be caught.
“Who will get caught? You. The student who used Claude to reorganize a paragraph. The journalist who asked the AI to summarize a two-hundred-page transcript. The writer who had creative block and asked for synonyms. Those guys come out of the process with a digital tattoo on their forehead.”
Far be it from me to undermine visionode’s outrage, but those are not the best examples. A journalist asking AI to summarize a two-hundred-page transcript is not going to be bothered by a watermark attached to that summary, unless they are copying and pasting the summary verbatim into their article — which is plainly unethical and shouldn’t be happening.
It is equally unethical for a student who copies and pastes Claude’s output into an essay after asking it to “reorganize a paragraph.”
Other Redditors were also not particularly supportive of the poster’s outrage.
“Get a load of this guy,” one poster merely commented.
Another asked the OP to take “a deep breath.”
Visionode wasn’t the only one complaining. Another unhappy camper called the watermarks “unethical” and “disgusting” and argued that by using Claude, they had done the lion’s share of the work. In their view, the chatbot was merely a “tool” that had facilitated their arduous labor.
“I gave the instructions, context, decisions, and countless refinements, claude was the tool. If Claude starts watermarking the code or anything else it generates, what exactly is it claiming credit for?” the poster asked.
Again, other users dogpiled onto the critic.
“It’s not claiming credit though,” one user shot back. “It’s about being able to detect AI generated outputs because of the risks AI generated outputs can cause in various situations.”
“Bro couldn’t even complain about Claude without using Claude to write it,” another quipped.
Some critics have steered clear of the victimhood narrative and made slightly more nuanced arguments against Anthropic’s new policy.
For instance, one poster complained of a general hypocrisy in watermarking an editorial product that was, itself, generated by hoovering up other people’s work. “I think it’s a very sinister direction to take,” said the user. “I don’t use Claude to write anything but having an AI that watermarks your work is terrifyingly ironic given how many of the frontier models came by their training data.”
In general, however, users have tended to support the watermarking system as a sensible way to track material that was generated by algorithm. “There is literally no good argument for why this isn’t a good idea,” a user on another thread said. “The only reason you wouldn’t want this is to lie to people.”