Hacker News Reader

Comment by figassis | Hacker News Reader

This is a very good definition, but today people will just claim the AI is not a victim, and pass this argument off to the legal cases the labs are already having in court wrt fair use. It's sad, but this is the argument people have made to themselves.

View on HN

The ‘real author’ isn’t the only injured party.

Copying from a book with a long dead author, or paying a willing confederate to write your thesis for you, is still plagiarism.

In academic settings, it’s also plagiarism to copy your own previous work. Given that, I’m not sure academia gets to take the high ground on what constitutes misconduct or not wrt to plagiarism, at least in the edge cases.

It's often denoted plagiarism or self plagiarism as a short cut. While it's probably better denoted duplicate publication (or similar) it still constitutes a similar academic misconduct, because you're pretending something is novel without it being novel

As a side note quite often it can actually be literal plagiarism as well, many journals require you to assign copyright, so using that work without attribution is plagiarism.

The status of the true author is kind of irrelevant to whether it’s plagiarism or not. The true author may even be an active participant in the conspiracy.

But the public is still made a victim by being deceived about the authorship and hence the value and reliability of the work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com