Quote from: nutildah on Today at 01:09:57 AM

Quote from: LoyceV on May 26, 2024, 02:59:17 PM

Quote from: The Sceptical Chymist on May 23, 2024, 02:58:05 PM

using AI isn't the same as plagiarism and as far as I can tell still falls into a grey zone--at least for now.

I'd argue chatbot verbal diarrhea is plagiarism by definition.

I'm more along this line of thinking... AI spammers are taking a body of text they didn't write and copy/pasting it, presenting it in a manner that everyone is supposed to assume they wrote it. Its highly dishonest.

Quote from: LoyceV on May 26, 2024, 02:59:17 PM

I've already seen claims against those companies for using data as input without permission (which is a copyright issue). They reproduce bits and pieces of other data without sharing the original source (which is a plagiarism issue).

Apparently Google's new AI search summary feature is unable to tell the The Onion is satire and believes everyone on Reddit is always telling the truth.

As with the other chatbot models, this can create real problems, especially when it comes to presenting nuanced & complex information that others may rely on. That's why it should be banned altogether. I suggest the forum adopt the same AI policy employed by Stack Overflow (which has been implemented for these very reasons):

Yes couldn't agree more they try to put into context from which they got out of context and pass it off as their own thought track. We should call this AI generation stealing "copypastism" or something of that nature because copy and pasting are all the end users do in this scenario hahhaaah actually the technical or well new technical term would be "promptographer" kind of like taking a picture but instead of the human using the camera to capture the picture humans only type on the keyboard and prompt the AI to create some sort of answer based on original thought. So that is interesting becuase now we are giving credit back to the humans as the original input for the work being done, so would this make us the sole owners of the output produced then? THat is a tough argument to uphold lol. I would say no, no it is not. And this rings true in the court of law today. Many a person has tried to claim AI as their own but it always comes back in the court room that any invention or work needs to be of human origin to be claimed as patentable original work.