>It doesn't, though. From the outside, without access to the parameters, you can't distinguish the watermarking system from a random number generator.

You can't as a user tell by how much the quality of the output was degraded. True.

>We already use an RNG at inference precisely because it leads to higher-quality output. Changing what function is generating our random numbers changes the sequence, not the randomness from the point of view of a user.

I'm not saying it wasn't random and now it is. I know how these things work. I said that the quality of the system is in the quality of the probabilities. That quality is being degraded.