I wrote the article. How you define quality is exactly the issue.
> In my opinion, 'sample diversity' and 'sample quality' are not the same thing, and conflating the two concepts leads to poor intuition.
But you're assuming everyone has the same notion of quality as you. As I point out in the piece, even the paper's writers use "quality" to show how watermarking can "lower the overall quality of a system"
> SynthID and the like probably matter most if one is trying to repeatedly sample an LLM in order to infer the probability distribution
Which is another impact I write about in the piece. If you evaluate the output quality of an LLM system in this way, you're impacted more by watermarking.
> In my opinion, 'sample diversity' and 'sample quality' are not the same thing, and conflating the two concepts leads to poor intuition.
But you're assuming everyone has the same notion of quality as you. As I point out in the piece, even the paper's writers use "quality" to show how watermarking can "lower the overall quality of a system"
> SynthID and the like probably matter most if one is trying to repeatedly sample an LLM in order to infer the probability distribution
Which is another impact I write about in the piece. If you evaluate the output quality of an LLM system in this way, you're impacted more by watermarking.