@crista To be sure, obfuscation would be deeply unethical.

But when hidden behind a proprietary algorithm, it would make it much harder to convince the courts of where the source material came from and that it was implemented as parrot | obfuscate instead of synthesize | create as they would like the world to believe "AI" does. Unless there was an internal leaker, but it's hard to imagine there weren't internal technical conversations about the plagiarism inherent to the current architecture.

@crista Yes, but admitting that would undermine the AI hype, risking an informed public and healthy regulatory posture.

I'd have expected them to swap synonyms and apply light control structure isomorphisms so it's not so obviously parroted. MOSS already exists to test how much obfuscation is enough. I'd love to hear an internal account about why that wasn't done; it would have made legal challenges much less compelling.

@crista I'd like to see this discussion center the concept of plagiarism.

If you give a human source material and they turn around and write a paragraph that's near-verbatim from the source material, that's plagiarism. Same for code. And the human can even *understand* what the computer has no concept of.

They could have followed clean-room reimplementation practices, with separate systems observing source material and generating output. But despite the AI mythology, that's too hard.