4 ms·

So you plagiarized for your paper? I mean, people seem to be in agreement that studios using visual AI generated art that draws from existing works is plagiaris

by viccis 2y ago

So you plagiarized for your paper? I mean, people seem to be in agreement that studios using visual AI generated art that draws from existing works is plagiarism, so how did you not commit academic fraud? Did you consider that encountering challenges with expressing yourself and overcoming them is the pedagogical purpose for papers like that? I am assuming your paper was for a class, given your comparison to calculators in a classroom. If not, then my point does not apply. >Our teachers at the time justified "no calculator" policies by saying "You won't have a calculator in your pocket when you're going through life!". And, well, that turned out to be very wrong. The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. It would indeed be absurd to have to consult a calculator for every numerical step you have to take in math work for subsequent years, so I think your teachers were right.

josephg 2y ago
> So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Or Apple's smart selection tool? > The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. [...] so I think your teachers were right. (Emphasis mine) Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators.
- firesteelrain 2y ago
  What else is the reason to write a “paper” if not for a class or journal or conference? Do you write papers just because? I don’t care if anyone uses LLMs to help write papers as long as it doesn’t falsify findings.
  - josephg 2y ago
    I’m certainly not falsifying any findings. I just needed some help finding English words to help make the math easier to understand. I’m sorry for this, but if some members of this community are ready and willing to make claims of academic misconduct over the idea of using an llm as a writing assistant, I don’t think I trust this community enough to go into more details in this thread.
    - firesteelrain 2y ago
      You are overreacting. No one is getting what you are talking about.
- viccis 2y ago
  >I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. >f you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Absolutely, if you are talking about some of the new ones that use stable diffusion and other visual generative models. It might be fine if you're doing it in a commercial setting and those models' licenses authorize you to do so, but using that for a situation in which the art is assumed to be yours (an art class project or for a commission in which the contract states you are producing it) would be fraud. >Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators. Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???), I'm gonna assume your Australian teachers' policy was applicable to my point.
  - josephg 2y ago
    > Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, Rude. Rude and wrong. > If [...] this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. The biggest difference is that chatgpt's suggested improvements weren't very good, and none of its suggestions ended up in the final text. Is it the product of plagerism? I absolutely believe that ChatGPT is being overused in academia, just like stackoverflow is in professional programming. But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. To me, banning the tool outright would be as silly as banning google search, banning calculators outright in schools or banning artists from using photoshop. (And yes, people made the same argument about photoshop when it was invented - that art made with it wasn't really art because the computer did all the heavy lifting.) > Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???) Of course. The grounds for your argument is where it unraveled. You claimed that my teachers had the right calculator policy, but you didn't (and still don't) have enough information to make that claim because you don't know the policy my teachers had. I would have told you if you asked, but you didn't. You simply went on the attack assuming you had all the facts. And now in this followup message, you have doubled down on your mistake. For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned.
jdoe2020 2y ago
Well for the studios the art is the product. For researchers the ideas and data are the product and the writing is packaging. It's not a perfect analogy but it gets across why I personally don't get up in arms about this. Provided the findings aren't being changed does it really matter? Sometimes chatgpt is a useful editor for flow in the same way you'd ask a colleague or spouse. And If it levels the playing field between native English speakers and foreigners that is good in my book.

by viccis 2y ago

josephg 2y ago

> So you plagiarized for your paper? I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. That is a very heavy term. Anyway, I don't think what I did is any more "academic misconduct" than using Grammerly is academic misconduct. They're both uses of LLMs, sure. But the uses are different and we need to start differentiating them. If you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Or Apple's smart selection tool? > The only time we weren't allowed to use calculators was for things like arithmetic and fraction manipulation. [...] so I think your teachers were right. (Emphasis mine) Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators.

firesteelrain 2y ago
What else is the reason to write a “paper” if not for a class or journal or conference? Do you write papers just because? I don’t care if anyone uses LLMs to help write papers as long as it doesn’t falsify findings.
- josephg 2y ago
  I’m certainly not falsifying any findings. I just needed some help finding English words to help make the math easier to understand. I’m sorry for this, but if some members of this community are ready and willing to make claims of academic misconduct over the idea of using an llm as a writing assistant, I don’t think I trust this community enough to go into more details in this thread.
  - firesteelrain 2y ago
    You are overreacting. No one is getting what you are talking about.
viccis 2y ago
>I don't think I did. And no, it wasn't for a class. Please be more considered before throwing out accusations of academic misconduct. Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, as I pointed out and explained the academic contextual assumption I made. If you are focusing on my phrase "for a class" here, and this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. >f you think AI generated art is plagerism, would you therefore conclude that photoshop's content aware fill is plagerism, since it uses the same AI models? Absolutely, if you are talking about some of the new ones that use stable diffusion and other visual generative models. It might be fine if you're doing it in a commercial setting and those models' licenses authorize you to do so, but using that for a situation in which the art is assumed to be yours (an art class project or for a commission in which the contract states you are producing it) would be fraud. >Seems pretty strange to assume my teachers were right given you have no idea what country I went to school in or what their policy was on calculators. Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???), I'm gonna assume your Australian teachers' policy was applicable to my point.
- josephg 2y ago
  > Please throw all of my comment into whatever LLM you used to respond, Rude. Rude and wrong. > If [...] this paper was actually for an academic conference or journal, then yes! you have committed academic misconduct. This is a surprising perspective given that in many ways I had the same conversation with chatgpt about my work that I might have had with a colleague or a spouse. The biggest difference is that chatgpt's suggested improvements weren't very good, and none of its suggestions ended up in the final text. Is it the product of plagerism? I absolutely believe that ChatGPT is being overused in academia, just like stackoverflow is in professional programming. But I don't think we have any consensus as to where the line should be between "acceptable use" and plagerism. To me, banning the tool outright would be as silly as banning google search, banning calculators outright in schools or banning artists from using photoshop. (And yes, people made the same argument about photoshop when it was invented - that art made with it wasn't really art because the computer did all the heavy lifting.) > Given that you didn't really dispute my point and rather attacked the grounds for it, and that you invented a false premise of your own (that calculator policies are a per-country thing ???) Of course. The grounds for your argument is where it unraveled. You claimed that my teachers had the right calculator policy, but you didn't (and still don't) have enough information to make that claim because you don't know the policy my teachers had. I would have told you if you asked, but you didn't. You simply went on the attack assuming you had all the facts. And now in this followup message, you have doubled down on your mistake. For reference, of course the calculator policy at my Australian school in the 90s was different from yours. We generally weren't allowed calculators on the school grounds at all. That started to change right at the end of high school, when they started allowing calculators in class and non-graphing calculators in examinations. (They checked as we walked in the door). But for most of my grade school experience, calculators were banned.

jdoe2020 2y ago

Well for the studios the art is the product. For researchers the ideas and data are the product and the writing is packaging. It's not a perfect analogy but it gets across why I personally don't get up in arms about this. Provided the findings aren't being changed does it really matter? Sometimes chatgpt is a useful editor for flow in the same way you'd ask a colleague or spouse. And If it levels the playing field between native English speakers and foreigners that is good in my book.