←back to thread

451 points croes | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | 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 #
biophysboy ◴[] No.43963863[source]
Having actually done research and published scientific papers, the key limitation is experimentation. Review papers are useful, and AI is useful, but creating new knowledge is more useful. I haven't had much luck using LLMs to extrapolate well beyond their knowledge domain.
replies(1): >>43966819 #
1. scraptor ◴[] No.43966819[source]
I certainly don't see much value in AI generated papers myself, I just object to the claim that the mere act of reading a large number of existing papers before writing yours is inherently plagiarism.