4 ms·
I'd rather not include it at all, for exactly that reason. It's just a writing tool- the paper is either correct or incorrect on the same basis as any other pap
by ravi-delia 4y ago
I'd rather not include it at all, for exactly that reason. It's just a writing tool- the paper is either correct or incorrect on the same basis as any other paper. We include bibliographies to ensure that the relevant scientific data is present, but I don't think there's any reason to say that a non-reproducible abstract isn't science
- kergonath 4y agoIt belongs in the acknowledgments, along with Bob’s wife who did a bit of proofreading, Steve McProfessor who had a chat with the authors once, and whatever software was used for the figures.
- clbrmbr 4y agoThis. It’s crazy that people are thinking we should _credit_ the model as if it were an author. It’s a tool, and should be usable without limit. It would however be nice to have a mode where any output that matches some existing text in the training set could be highlighted, to help one avoid unintentional plagiarism.
- jpwagner 4y agoPlagiarism will undergo a change in definition.
- anticensor 4y agoPlagiarism used to be norm until mass similarity checking has been available.
- clbrmbr 4y agoIn published writing? If so, we could pattern match historically, and discover the base rate of plagiarism.