> Is using the basic-ass I-V-VI-IV chord progression in music "plagiarism", since it has been (and is) used by countless other people before? This is not at al

> Is using the basic-ass I-V-VI-IV chord progression in music "plagiarism", since it has been (and is) used by countless other people before? This is not at all what's happening here. Complete red herring. > If GPT-3 (or most humans, for that matter) are asked to complete the phrase "To be or not to..." and decide that the word "be" is the most likely/reasonable completion, does it mean that GPT-3 (or any human, for that matter) is "plagiarizing" Shakespeare? The short answer is yes (imho), but let me put it this way: does GPT-3 know that when it's regurgitating "to be or not to be" it's actually regurgitating Shakespeare? My argument is that no, it does not know, precisely because it thinks this just happens to be a very strong statistical correlation of stringing words together. When, in fact, it's a very famous phrase by a very famous person. So, in a way, it's "accidentally" plagiarizing, but plagiarizing nonetheless. Like if, for whatever reason, I had heard the phrase "it was the best of times, it was the worst of times" somewhere, but couldn't remember where, my ignorance doesn't preclude me from technically plagiarizing Charles Dickens if I blatantly reused the phrase without attribution. > things like "it is literally plagiarizing and copying what it saw before" (which seems much less defensible/accurate). This is literally what it's doing, though, under the guise of "statistical correlation." In fact, I've read reports of people using GPT-3-adjacent models that needed to add specific filtering out of training data.