Ted Hardy
Dare ObasanjoWho called it Generative AI instead of Plagiarism as a Service?
Jeff MoeMicrosoft Co-Pirate.
Cassandrich
Till@jebba @carnage4life hey! Don't insult pirates!
Timo Grün@carnage4life
Smoke and mirrors has been the name of the game since the Oracle of Delphi. Just different smoke, different mirrors.
Smoke and mirrors has been the name of the game since the Oracle of Delphi. Just different smoke, different mirrors.
Whitey@carnage4life Out of 300,000 high-probability images tested, researchers found a 0.03% memorization rate. There are more instances of plagiarism on Fiverr.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/researchers-extract-training-images-from-stable-diffusion-but-its-difficult/
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/researchers-extract-training-images-from-stable-diffusion-but-its-difficult/
Ryan Mendoza
Adam Gessaman 
@carnage4life the student-facing ad copy writes itself. “PaaS to Pass”
John Carlsen 🇺🇸🇳🇱🇪🇺Generative predicted text "artificial intelligence" is essentially "Plagiarism as a Service".
So, let's call its users "PlaaSterers".
MOVED * Dan Ritz * MOVED
Ryan@carnage4life Mansplaining as a Service would also work.
Adam [ 🎹 🥘 🧑💻 🏒 ♟️ 💞 ]@carnage4life i dont find feeding it other people’s content anywhere near as compelling as I do the couple of decades of published writing I queued up evidently for this moment, tiny little miracle machine
Kevin Karhan 
@carnage4life because it's legally not #plagiarism because that implies an #AI's #output can have #copyright [spoiler it can't and that's good!] but rather #shitpostingAsAService...
https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/
https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/
S. L. Crane@kkarhan Plagiarism was a thing long before copyright became one though. The legal status of the AI's output is irrelevant here.
@slcrane by sheer quality it's mostly shitposting...
Tobias Denkinger@kkarhan
Plagiarism is an academic thing, not a legal one.
Potential copyright issues with the output of LLM-based applications are caused by the training INPUT for the LLM being copyrighted.
@carnage4life
@denki @carnage4life no, that's not how copyright wotks.
Otherwise you'd perpetually owe your schoolbooks' publishers licensing fees for having learned from them.
https://felixreda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/
@kkarhan @carnage4life
LLMs can recall exact matches. In that case they would reproduce someone else's work verbatim (or close enough). Every time this happens, they may infringe on the copyright of the original author.
If I were to reproduce a big enough sample of any of my school books, I would potentially be on the hook for copyright infringement as well. But unlike an LLM, I can not recall my school books exactly.
@kkarhan @carnage4life
Coincidentally, the first commenter on the article you linked remarked on the same thing I just did.
Coincidentally, the first commenter on the article you linked remarked on the same thing I just did.
@denki @carnage4life "comment section" does not replace professional legal advie.
#NotLegalAdvice but you better understand the legal ramifications that claiming AI can do "copyrightable works" becuase that would be the necesity for any copyright violation being possible.
Because that shit will more likely be used to rent-seek on law-abiding people and make everyone who learned from books a perpetual debt peon rather that restricting #TechBros at rentseeking.
@kkarhan @carnage4life
I am not claiming that an AI can do copyrightable work. A copier is also unable to do copyrightable work, but if I use it to copy someone else's work, I may be on the hook for infringement just as well.
I am not claiming that an AI can do copyrightable work. A copier is also unable to do copyrightable work, but if I use it to copy someone else's work, I may be on the hook for infringement just as well.
@kkarhan @carnage4life
»"comment section" does not replace professional legal advie.«
Of course not. I just noticed that the first commenter raised the same issue I did, hence the "coincidentally".
VoxClamantisInDesertoOr parrot farming?
TengrainIt’s just a fancy Autocomplete.
Ω 🌍 Gus Posey
The Evil Microwizard@carnage4life Degenerative AI
@carnage4life PaaD - plagiarism as a disservice
ChookMother 🇦🇺🦘@carnage4life The people who want to sell it?
Gibbon
Cendyne@carnage4life sketchy legal search engine as a service
Scott the F is implicit Baxter@carnage4life I'm pretty sure I saw this before. Maybe you copied it from somewhere else?
Kay 
@carnage4life and ChatGPT = #MansplainingAsAService
Ryo@carnage4life so every artist is a thief. Every artist gets inspired by everything around them especially other arts.
jpelletierI guess I'm curious if people who consider it plagiarism think human artist's shouldn't be allowed to look at other human artists' work? People seem ethically OK with humans copying art styles for some reason, but not if a robot does it?
Osmo Patagium, Pointy Bat Pone@carnage4life I think I’ve heard that argument before. Are you going to give credit?
Balázs Bárány@carnage4life If you call it plagiarism, you need to call school, university and science plagiarism.