Can ChatGPT Remove Watermark

Last month, I was working on a research project about AI-generated content detection. The question that kept coming up was: "Can ChatGPT itself remove watermarks from other AI-generated text?" It's a fascinating paradox - can an AI tool that might add watermarks also remove them?

This question has become increasingly relevant as educators, journalists, and content creators grapple with what some have dubbed "Algiarism" - the use of AI-generated content that's difficult to detect. The concern is real: from high school teachers to college professors to journalists, everyone fears that powerful AI chatbots have ushered in a new era of bot-generated essays and articles.

While OpenAI has said that they eventually plan on implementing "watermarks" to verify whether something was created by ChatGPT, there's still no official method of doing so—which can create a giant bot-sized headache across all sectors like education and journalism. For the latest updates on OpenAI's watermarking plans, you can check OpenAI's official blog and research publications.

What Are AI Watermarks, Really?

Before we dive into whether ChatGPT can remove them, let's understand what we're dealing with. AI watermarks are essentially hidden markers embedded in AI-generated content that can be used to identify the source or detect AI-generated text.

There are several types of watermarking approaches:

Statistical Watermarking: This method embeds patterns in word choice, sentence structure, or token selection through algorithmic modifications to the token sampling process. The core mechanism involves:

• Green list/red list partitioning: During text generation, tokens are divided into "green list" (promoted) and "red list" (suppressed) based on a hash function of previous tokens. The watermark is embedded by biasing the model toward green-list tokens.
• Detection mechanism: Watermark detection involves analyzing the proportion of green-list tokens in a text sample and comparing it against expected random distribution. The statistical significance of this deviation indicates watermark presence.

Research by Kirchenbauer et al., 2023 shows that statistical watermarks can achieve high detection rates - in some cases, detecting watermarked text with confidence levels exceeding 99.999999999994% from just 23 words in a 1.3 billion parameter model. However, the robustness of these watermarks against removal attacks varies significantly:

• Paraphrasing attacks: Zhao et al., 2023 demonstrates that simple paraphrasing can reduce watermark detection accuracy, with effectiveness depending on the watermark strength parameter (δ) and the quality of the paraphrasing model.
• Token substitution attacks: Targeted replacement of green-list tokens with semantically similar red-list tokens can degrade watermark signals, though this requires sophisticated understanding of the watermarking algorithm.
• Multi-pass generation: Running watermarked text through multiple generation passes can gradually erode the statistical patterns, though this comes at the cost of text quality degradation.
• Robustness trade-offs: Stronger watermarks (higher δ values) provide better detection but may introduce more noticeable text quality degradation, creating a fundamental trade-off between watermark strength and text naturalness.

Zero-Width Character Watermarking: Some AI models insert invisible Unicode characters (like zero-width joiners, zero-width spaces, zero-width non-joiners) into their output. These characters are invisible to humans but can be detected programmatically. The Unicode Standard defines these characters for legitimate typographic purposes (e.g., controlling text rendering in complex scripts), but they can also function as watermarks when inserted in patterns that don't serve typographic needs.

Important boundary condition: Not all invisible Unicode characters indicate watermarks - they may be legitimate typographic markers, especially in multilingual text or complex script rendering. Watermark detection requires pattern analysis, not just presence detection.

Semantic Watermarking: This approach embeds patterns in the semantic meaning or structure of the text, making them harder to detect and remove. Unlike statistical watermarks that operate at the token level, semantic watermarks work at higher levels of abstraction:

• Semantic structure patterns: Embedding specific semantic relationships or discourse patterns that are statistically unusual but semantically coherent.
• Stylistic markers: Subtle variations in writing style that are characteristic of AI generation but not easily identifiable as watermarks.
• Conceptual associations: Patterns in how concepts are linked or presented that can serve as identification markers.

Current limitations: Semantic watermarking is less mature than statistical watermarking, with fewer published implementations and robustness evaluations. Most current watermarking systems rely primarily on statistical methods.

The challenge is that watermarking technology is still evolving, and different AI services may use different approaches - or none at all.

The Current State of ChatGPT Watermarking

Here's where things get interesting. Recent observations from independent researchers suggest that some ChatGPT models (like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4-mini) may insert invisible Unicode characters - such as narrow non-breaking spaces (U+202F) - that can be recognized as potential AI markers. These observations have been discussed in technical communities, though it's important to note that such social media discussions should be interpreted cautiously and verified against official sources.

Official position: OpenAI denies these are official watermarks and attributes any such characters to anomalies during the training process or legitimate text processing needs. The company has stated that they plan to implement official watermarking systems but have not yet deployed them in production.

Important caveat: This creates an ambiguous situation where:

• There may be invisible markers in ChatGPT's output
• These are not officially documented as watermarks
• Independent verification is limited
• Social media observations, while valuable, should be supplemented with peer-reviewed research

As discussed by technical researchers, you can use Word's find and replace function or specialized cleaning tools to remove these characters, but the question remains - are these intentional watermarks, training artifacts, or legitimate typographic markers? Without official documentation or reproducible detection methods, this remains an open question that requires further research.

Can ChatGPT Remove Watermarks?

This is the million-dollar question. Let's break down what we know:

The Technical Challenge

Statistical Watermarks: These are embedded in the probability distributions of word choices. When you ask ChatGPT to rewrite or paraphrase watermarked text, it generates new text based on its own probability distributions. This means:

• The new text may not contain the original watermark pattern
• However, ChatGPT might introduce its own watermark patterns
• The effectiveness depends on how the watermark was originally embedded

Zero-Width Character Watermarks: These are easier to remove. If you paste watermarked text into ChatGPT and ask it to rewrite it, the model will generate new text that likely won't contain the original zero-width characters. However:

• ChatGPT might add its own invisible characters
• Simple copy-paste operations might preserve the original watermarks
• The removal isn't guaranteed - it depends on how the text is processed

What Research Tells Us

Research on watermark removal is still emerging, but here's what we know:

Watermark Properties: According to research, effective watermarks should have:

• Minimal marginal probability for detection attempts
• Good speech frequency and energy rate reduction
• Messages indiscernible to humans
• Easy for humans to verify

These properties are discussed in detail in research papers such as "On the Possibility of Provably Watermarking Large Language Models" by Christ et al., which explores the theoretical foundations of watermarking AI-generated content.

Detection Challenges and Attack Robustness: The same research that shows high detection rates (99.999999999994% confidence) also reveals important limitations:

• Detection requirements: Watermarks can be detected with high confidence from relatively short text samples (as few as 23 words in some cases), but this depends on watermark strength parameters and text characteristics.
• Attack vulnerability: Sophisticated removal techniques can significantly reduce detection accuracy. Zhao et al., 2023 demonstrates that:
  • Paraphrasing attacks can reduce detection rates by 20-40% depending on the paraphrasing model quality
  • Token substitution attacks can degrade watermark signals, especially when attackers have knowledge of the watermarking algorithm
  • Multi-pass generation attacks can gradually erode statistical patterns
• Robustness trade-offs: The effectiveness varies significantly based on:
  • Watermark strength parameter (δ): Higher values provide better detection but may impact text quality
  • Text length: Longer texts provide more reliable detection
  • Attack sophistication: Simple attacks (single paraphrasing) are less effective than sophisticated multi-step attacks
  • Model size: Larger models may embed watermarks more robustly
• Current limitations: Most watermarking systems are vulnerable to adaptive attacks where attackers iteratively refine removal attempts based on detection feedback. This represents an ongoing challenge in watermarking research.

Practical Testing

When I tested this myself, here's what I found:

Test Methodology:

• Tested with GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models
• Used sample texts of varying lengths (50-500 words)
• Applied multiple rewriting strategies
• Checked for zero-width characters using Unicode analysis tools
• Note: These are qualitative observations from personal testing, not peer-reviewed quantitative experiments

Results:

1. Simple Paraphrasing: Asking ChatGPT to "rewrite this text" or "paraphrase this" often removes zero-width character watermarks, but the new text may contain ChatGPT's own markers. Success rate appeared to be approximately 70-80% for zero-width character removal, though this is an informal estimate.

2. Statistical Watermarks: These are harder to remove. Even after multiple rounds of rewriting, some statistical patterns may persist, though they become less detectable. The degradation appears gradual rather than complete removal.

3. Multiple Iterations: Running text through ChatGPT multiple times (ChatGPT → rewrite → ChatGPT → rewrite) can gradually degrade watermarks, but it also degrades the text quality. After 3-5 iterations, text quality noticeably decreased while watermark signals weakened but didn't disappear entirely.

4. Prompt Engineering: Specific prompts like "remove any hidden markers" or "clean this text" don't reliably remove watermarks - ChatGPT doesn't have explicit knowledge of watermark patterns. No significant difference was observed compared to standard paraphrasing prompts.

Limitations of This Testing:

• Small sample size (informal testing, not systematic study)
• No quantitative metrics for watermark strength
• No controlled comparison with baseline detection rates
• Results may not generalize to all watermarking systems
• Testing was limited to publicly available models
• No experimental data tables or quantitative results provided
• Methods not fully reproducible without additional experimental details

Recommendation for Reproducible Research: Future studies should include:

• Quantitative metrics (e.g., detection confidence scores before/after removal attempts)
• Controlled experiments with known watermarked samples
• Statistical analysis across multiple samples
• Comparison with baseline detection rates
• Publication of experimental protocols and data for reproducibility
• Experimental data tables showing:
  • Sample sizes and characteristics
  • Detection rates before and after removal attempts
  • Statistical significance measures
  • Text quality metrics (e.g., BLEU scores, semantic similarity)
  • Iteration counts and success rates
• Reproducible experimental assets:
  • Code for watermark detection
  • Sample datasets
  • Experimental protocols
  • Analysis scripts

Why Watermark Removal Matters

The ability to remove watermarks has significant implications:

Academic Integrity: If students can easily remove watermarks from AI-generated essays, detection becomes much harder for educators. This raises concerns about academic dishonesty and the integrity of educational assessments.

Content Authenticity: Journalists and content creators need reliable ways to verify whether content is AI-generated. Watermark removal undermines these verification mechanisms.

Legal and Ethical Concerns: Watermark removal raises questions about:

• Terms of service violations (many AI services prohibit removing watermarks)
• Copyright and attribution (misrepresenting AI-generated content as original work)
• Misrepresentation of AI-generated content as human-written
• Potential fraud or deception in contexts where authenticity matters

Research and Development: Understanding removal techniques helps improve watermarking methods, making them more robust. However, this research must be conducted ethically and responsibly.

Important Ethical Consideration: This article discusses watermark removal methods for educational and legitimate technical purposes. However, readers should be aware that:

• Removing watermarks to misrepresent AI-generated content as human-written may violate terms of service
• Such actions may have legal consequences depending on jurisdiction
• Academic and professional contexts may have specific policies against watermark removal
• The potential for misuse exists, and users should consider the ethical implications of their actions

Limitations and Challenges

It's important to understand the limitations:

ChatGPT Doesn't Know About Watermarks: ChatGPT doesn't have explicit knowledge of watermark patterns. It can't "see" statistical watermarks or intentionally remove them. Any removal is incidental - a byproduct of text generation.

Quality Degradation: Multiple rounds of rewriting to remove watermarks can significantly degrade text quality, making it less useful.

Detection vs. Removal: Even if watermarks are partially removed, sophisticated detection systems might still identify AI-generated content through other means (stylistic analysis, semantic patterns, etc.).

Evolving Technology: Watermarking technology is rapidly evolving. What works today might not work tomorrow, and new watermarking methods are being developed that are harder to remove.

Methods for Watermark Removal (If Needed)

If you need to remove watermarks for legitimate purposes (like cleaning text for code use), here are some approaches:

Method 1: Using ChatGPT for Paraphrasing

Pros:

• Can remove zero-width character watermarks
• May reduce statistical watermark strength
• Easy to use

Cons:

• May introduce new watermarks
• Quality may degrade
• Not guaranteed to work

Method 2: Manual Cleaning Tools

Try our free watermark cleaning tool → - A browser-based tool that removes zero-width characters instantly.

Pros:

• Reliable for zero-width characters
• Preserves text quality
• Works locally (privacy)

Cons:

• Doesn't affect statistical watermarks
• Requires technical knowledge
• Time-consuming for large texts

Method 3: Multiple Iterations

Pros:

• Can gradually reduce watermark strength
• May work for statistical watermarks

Cons:

• Significant quality degradation
• Time-consuming
• Not guaranteed

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Here are some common questions about ChatGPT and watermark removal:

Q: Can ChatGPT intentionally remove watermarks?

No. ChatGPT doesn't have explicit knowledge of watermark patterns. Any removal that occurs is incidental - a side effect of generating new text. ChatGPT can't "see" or "understand" watermarks in the way a detection tool can.

Q: Will asking ChatGPT to rewrite text remove watermarks?

It depends on the type of watermark:

• Zero-width character watermarks: Often removed, as ChatGPT generates new text
• Statistical watermarks: May be reduced but not completely removed
• Semantic watermarks: Unlikely to be affected

However, ChatGPT may add its own markers to the rewritten text.

Q: Is it ethical to remove watermarks from AI-generated content?

This is a complex ethical question. It depends on:

• Your intended use of the content
• The terms of service of the AI service
• Legal requirements in your jurisdiction
• Academic or professional standards

Generally, removing watermarks to misrepresent AI-generated content as human-written is problematic. However, cleaning text for legitimate technical purposes (like removing invisible characters that cause code errors) is often acceptable.

Q: Can watermark detection systems still identify text after ChatGPT removes watermarks?

Possibly. Sophisticated detection systems use multiple methods:

• Statistical pattern analysis
• Stylistic analysis
• Semantic pattern detection
• Metadata analysis

Even if one watermark is removed, other detection methods might still identify the content as AI-generated.

Q: Are the invisible Unicode characters in ChatGPT output official watermarks?

OpenAI denies these are official watermarks and attributes them to training anomalies. However, they can function as de facto markers. The situation is ambiguous - there are markers, but they're not officially documented as watermarks.

Q: Will future ChatGPT versions be better at removing watermarks?

This is uncertain. OpenAI's development priorities focus on:

• Improving text quality
• Enhancing capabilities
• Safety and alignment

Watermark removal isn't a stated goal. However, as models improve at generating natural text, they may incidentally become better at removing watermarks through high-quality paraphrasing.

The Bigger Picture

The question "Can ChatGPT remove watermarks?" touches on larger issues:

The Arms Race: As watermarking technology improves, so do removal techniques. This creates an ongoing arms race between detection and evasion. Each improvement in watermarking robustness is met with new attack strategies, creating a dynamic landscape that requires continuous research and development.

Transparency and Authority: The lack of official documentation about ChatGPT's watermarking (or lack thereof) creates confusion. More transparency would help users understand what they're working with. It's important to note that while this article references academic research from institutions like arXiv and OpenAI, the author and this platform are tool providers, not academic institutions. While we strive to accurately represent research findings, readers should consult original peer-reviewed sources for authoritative information.

Regulation: As AI-generated content becomes more common, we may see regulations requiring watermarking or disclosure. This could change how removal is viewed legally and ethically. Regulatory frameworks may emerge that:

• Require watermarking for certain types of AI-generated content
• Prohibit removal of watermarks in specific contexts
• Establish standards for watermark robustness and detection

Research Needs: More research is needed on:

• Robust watermarking methods that resist adaptive attacks
• Detection techniques that work across diverse text types and domains
• Removal resistance mechanisms that maintain text quality
• Ethical frameworks for watermarking and removal
• Quantitative evaluation metrics and standardized benchmarks
• Reproducible experimental protocols and datasets

Academic Sources: For those interested in diving deeper into the academic research, the arXiv preprint server contains numerous peer-reviewed papers on watermarking techniques, detection methods, and removal attacks. Key papers include:

• "A Watermark for Large Language Models" by Kirchenbauer et al. - Foundational work on statistical watermarking
• "On the Possibility of Provably Watermarking Large Language Models" by Christ et al. - Theoretical foundations and provable security
• "Robust Distortion-Free Watermarks for Language Models" by Zhao et al. - Robustness analysis and attack resistance

Note on Sources: While this article references social media discussions for observational data, readers should prioritize peer-reviewed academic research for authoritative information. Social media observations can provide valuable insights but should be interpreted with appropriate skepticism and verified against established research.

What We've Learned

After researching and testing, here's what stands out:

Watermark removal is possible but imperfect: ChatGPT can remove some watermarks through rewriting, but it's not reliable or guaranteed. The process may introduce new markers or degrade text quality. The effectiveness varies significantly based on watermark type, strength, and removal method.

The technology is evolving: Watermarking and detection methods are rapidly improving. What works today might not work tomorrow. The field is actively developing, with new robustness techniques and attack methods emerging regularly.

Context matters: Whether watermark removal is appropriate depends on your use case, ethical considerations, and legal requirements. Legitimate technical needs (like cleaning text for code) differ from attempts to misrepresent AI-generated content.

Transparency is key: The ambiguity around ChatGPT's watermarking (or lack thereof) creates confusion. More clarity from AI companies would help users understand what they're working with and make informed decisions.

Research limitations: While this article provides practical insights and references academic research, it's important to acknowledge that:

• Personal testing provides qualitative observations, not quantitative experimental data
• Reproducible experimental protocols and datasets would strengthen the conclusions
• The field would benefit from standardized benchmarks and evaluation metrics
• Readers should consult original peer-reviewed research for authoritative information

Balanced perspective: This article attempts to present a balanced view, but readers should be aware that:

• Some observations rely on social media discussions that may not be independently verified
• The platform's commercial nature may introduce inherent biases
• Academic sources should be prioritized for authoritative information

Conclusion

So, can ChatGPT remove watermarks? The answer is: partially, incidentally, and not reliably.

ChatGPT can remove some watermarks (especially zero-width character watermarks) when rewriting text, but this is a side effect of text generation, not an intentional capability. Statistical and semantic watermarks are harder to remove and may persist even after multiple rewriting attempts. The effectiveness varies significantly based on watermark type, strength parameters, and removal methods.

The bigger question isn't whether ChatGPT can remove watermarks, but whether it should - and what that means for content authenticity, academic integrity, and the future of AI-generated content detection.

Key Takeaways:

• Watermark removal is technically possible but imperfect and unreliable
• Different watermark types require different removal strategies
• Removal effectiveness must be balanced against text quality degradation
• The technology is rapidly evolving, with ongoing improvements in both watermarking and removal techniques

Important Limitations to Acknowledge:

• This article provides practical insights but lacks quantitative experimental data
• Personal testing results are qualitative and may not generalize
• Some observations rely on social media discussions that require independent verification
• The platform is a tool provider, not an academic institution - readers should consult peer-reviewed research for authoritative information
• Reproducible experimental protocols and datasets would strengthen the conclusions

Ethical Considerations:

• Watermark removal for misrepresentation purposes raises serious ethical and legal concerns
• Users should consider terms of service, legal requirements, and ethical implications
• Legitimate technical needs (like cleaning text for code) differ from attempts to deceive

As watermarking technology evolves, we'll likely see:

• More robust watermarking methods resistant to adaptive attacks
• Better detection systems with improved accuracy
• Clearer documentation from AI companies about watermarking practices
• Potential regulatory frameworks governing watermarking and removal

For now, if you need clean, watermark-free text for legitimate purposes, specialized cleaning tools are more reliable than asking ChatGPT to remove watermarks. Start cleaning your text now → And if you're concerned about detecting AI-generated content, remember that watermark detection is just one tool in a larger toolkit that includes stylistic analysis, semantic pattern detection, and metadata examination.

The landscape is complex and rapidly changing. Stay informed, use tools responsibly, prioritize peer-reviewed research sources, and consider the ethical implications of your actions.

Additional Resources

For those interested in learning more about AI watermarking and detection, here are some authoritative resources:

Research Papers:

• Kirchenbauer et al., 2023 - "A Watermark for Large Language Models"
• Christ et al., 2023 - "On the Possibility of Provably Watermarking Large Language Models"
• Zhao et al., 2023 - "Robust Distortion-Free Watermarks for Language Models"
• arXiv Search: Watermarking Large Language Models

Standards and Documentation:

• Unicode Standard - Official Unicode specifications
• Unicode Character Database - Detailed character information
• W3C Character Model - Web standards for character handling

Industry Resources:

• OpenAI Blog - Official updates and announcements
• OpenAI Research - Research publications and papers
• OpenAI Terms of Use - Official terms and policies

Community Discussions:

• Grok on X: ChatGPT Unicode Characters Discussion
• Grok on X: Watermark Detection Methods

Technical References:

• MDN Web Docs - Regular Expressions - JavaScript regex guide for text processing
• Unicode Technical Reports - Detailed Unicode technical documentation

---

← Back to Home