←back to thread

451 points croes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
prvc ◴[] No.43962193[source]
The released draft report seems merely to be a litany of copyright holder complaints repeated verbatim, with little depth of reasoning to support the conclusions it makes.
replies(4): >>43962324 #>>43962424 #>>43962648 #>>43962893 #
bgwalter ◴[] No.43962424[source]
The required reasoning is not very deep though: If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.

If a savant has perfect recall, remembers text perfectly and rearranges that text to create a marginally new text, he'd be sued for breach of copyright.

Only large corporations get away with it.

replies(9): >>43962554 #>>43962560 #>>43962638 #>>43962665 #>>43962744 #>>43962820 #>>43963108 #>>43963228 #>>43963944 #
scraptor ◴[] No.43962554[source]
Plagiarism is not an issue of copyright law, it's an entirely separate system of rules maintained by academia. The US Copyright Office has no business having opinions about it. If a AI^W human reads 100 papers and then churns out a new one this is usually called research.
replies(5): >>43962756 #>>43962757 #>>43963247 #>>43963863 #>>43966801 #
dfxm12 ◴[] No.43962757[source]
Please argue in good faith. A new research paper is obviously materially different from "rearranging that text to create a marginally new text".
replies(2): >>43962849 #>>43962855 #
1. shkkmo ◴[] No.43962849[source]
The comment is responding to this line:

> If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.

That is a specific claim that is being directly addressed and pretty clearly qualifies as "good faith".