Being factually incorrect about literally everything you said changes nothing? Okay.

More importantly, humans are capable of abstract thought. Your whole argument is specious. If you find yourself lacking the context to understand these numbers, you can easily seek context. A good starting place would be the actual paper, which is linked in OP’s article. For the lazy: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4

It’s 14,000 to 75,000, not millions.

Microplastics are in the range of one micrometer to five millimeters, not nanometers.

They link to the full source paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61146-4

That seems more like your problem than OP’s.

However, it is still comparatively easy for a determined individual to remove a watermark and make AI-generated text look as if it was written by a person.

And that’s assuming people are using a model specifically designed with watermarking in the first place. In practice, this will only affect the absolute dumbest adversaries. It won’t apply at all to open source or custom-built tools. Any additional step in a workflow is going to wash this right out either way.

My fear is that regulators will try to ban open models because the can’t possibly control them. That wouldn’t actually work, of course, but it might sound good enough for an election campaign, and I’m sure Microsoft and Google would dump a pile of cash on their doorstep for it.