5 ms·

>also plagiarism To me, this is a reminder of how much of a specific minority this forum is. Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed

by aydyn 9mo ago

>also plagiarism To me, this is a reminder of how much of a specific minority this forum is. Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism", and I would trust their opinions far more than some random redditor.

fingerlocks 9mo ago
I find that hard to believe. Every creative professional that I know shares this sentiment. That’s several graphic designers at big tech companies, one person in print media, and one visual effects artist in the film industry. And once you include many of their professional colleagues that becomes a decent sample size.
- jama211 9mo ago
  Graphic design is a completely different kettle of fish. Comparing it to academic paper writing is disingenuous.
  - kortilla 9mo ago
    The thread is about not knowing anyone at all who thinks AI is plagiarizing.
    - jama211 9mo ago
      Yes, plagiarising text based content. No one in this thread meant graphics.
jama211 9mo ago
Yup, and no matter how flimsy an anti-ai article is, it will skyrocket to the top of HN because of it. It makes sense though, HN users are the most likely to feel threatened by LLMs, and therefore are more likely to be anxious about them. I don’t love ai either, but that’s the truth.
- techpression 9mo ago
  Strange, I find it quite the opposite, especially ”pro-ai” comments are often top of the list.
  - jama211 9mo ago
    I think there’s a bit of both, with a valley in the middle
falkensmaize 9mo ago
“Anti-AI extremism”? Seriously? Where does this bizarre impulse to dogmatically defend LLM output come from? I don’t understand it. If AI is a reliable and quality tool, that will become evident without the need to defend it - it’s got billions (trillions?) of dollars backstopping it. The skeptical pushback is WAY more important right now than the optimistic embrace.
- cthalupa 9mo ago
  The fact that there is absurd AI hype right now doesn't mean that we should let equally absurd bullshit pass on the other side of the spectrum. Having a reasonable and accurate discussion about the benefits, drawbacks, side effects, etc. is WAY more important right now than being flagrantly incorrect in either direction. Meanwhile this entire comment thread is about what appears to be, as fumi2026 points out in their comment, a predatory marketing play by a startup hoping to capitalize on the exact sort of anti AI sentiment that you seem to think is important... just because there is pro AI sentiment? Naming and shaming everyday researchers based on the idea that they have let hallucinations slip into their paper all because your own AI model has decided thatit was AI so you can signal boost your product seems pretty shitty and exploitative to me, and is only viable as a product and marketing strategy because of the visceral anti AI sentiment in some places.
  - falkensmaize 9mo ago
    “anti-ai sentiment” No that’s a straw man, sorry. Skepticism is not the same thing as irrational rejection. It means that I don’t believe you until you’ve proven with evidence that what you’re saying is true. The efficacy and reliability of LLMs requires proof. Ai companies are pouring extraordinary, unprecedented amounts of money into promoting the idea that their products are intelligent and trustworthy. That marketing push absolutely dwarfs the skeptical voices and that’s what makes those voices more important at the moment. If the researchers named have claims made against them that aren’t true, that should be a pretty easy thing for them to refute.
    - rustystump 9mo ago
neilv 9mo ago
> AI Overview > Plagiarism is using someone else's words, ideas, or work as your own without proper credit, a serious breach of ethics leading to academic failure, job loss, or legal issues, and can range from copying text (direct) to paraphrasing without citation (mosaic), often detected by software and best avoided by meticulous citation, quoting, and paraphrasing to show original thought and attribution.
- aydyn 8mo ago
  Not sure if I am correctly interpreting your implicit point but > Plagiarism is using someone else's words, Its right there. LLM is not "someone else"; its a very useful piece of software.
nick238 9mo ago
The LLM model and version should be included as an author so there's useful information about where the content came from.
BobbyJo 9mo ago
> Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree, so using that as an argument that parent's opinion is extreme is kind of circular reasoning. > I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. I don't see parent's opinions as anti-AI. It's more an argument about what AI is currently, and what research is supposed to be. AI is existing ideas. Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research.
- aydyn 9mo ago
  > TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree How about the authors who do research for NeurIPS? Do they know how AI works?
  - Intermernet 9mo ago
    Who knows? Do NeurIPS have a pedigree of original, well sourced research dating back to before the advent of LLMs? We're at the point where both of the terms "AI" and "Experts" are so blurred it's almost impossible to trust or distrust anything without spending more time on due diligence than most subjects deserve. As the wise woman once said "Ain't nobody got time for that".
- michaelt 9mo ago
  > Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research. One would hope the authors are forming a hypothesis, performing an experiment, gathering and analysing results, and only then passing it to the AI to convert it into a paper. If I have a theory that, IDK, laser welds in a sine wave pattern are stronger than laser welds in a zigzag pattern - I've still got to design the exact experimental details, obtain all the equipment and consumables, cut a few dozen test coupons, weld them, strength test them, and record all the measurements. Obviously if I skipped the experimentation and just had an AI fabricate the results table, that's academic misconduct of the clearest form.
neilv 9mo ago
> Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism", Or they didn't consider that it arguably fell within academia's definition of plagiarism. Or they thought they could get away with it. Why is someone behaving questionably the authority on whether that's OK? > Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. It's not "anti-AI extremism". If no one you know has said, "Hey, wait a minute, if I'm copy&pasting this text I didn't write, and putting my name on it, without credit or attribution, isn't that like... no... what am I missing?" then maybe they are focused on other angles. That doesn't mean that people who consider different angles than your friends do are "extremist". They're only "extremist" in the way that anyone critical at all of 'crypto' was "extremist", to the bros pumping it. Not coincidentally, there's some overlap in bros between the two.
- aydyn 9mo ago
  > Why is someone behaving questionably the authority on whether that's OK? Because they are not. Using AI to help writing is something literally every company is pushing for.
  - tsimionescu 9mo ago
    How is that relevant? Companies care very little about plagiarism, at least in the ethical sense (they do care if they think it's a legal risk, but that has turned out to not be the case with AI, so far at least).
    - aydyn 9mo ago
      What do you mean how is that relevant? Its a vast majority opinion in society that using ai to help you write is fine. Calling it "plagiarism" is a tiny minority online opinion.
      - tsimionescu 9mo ago
Culonavirus 9mo ago
Higher education is not free. People pay a shit ton of money to attend and also governments (taxpayers) invest a lot. Imagine offloading your research to an AI bot...

by aydyn 9mo ago

fingerlocks 9mo ago

I find that hard to believe. Every creative professional that I know shares this sentiment. That’s several graphic designers at big tech companies, one person in print media, and one visual effects artist in the film industry. And once you include many of their professional colleagues that becomes a decent sample size.

jama211 9mo ago
Graphic design is a completely different kettle of fish. Comparing it to academic paper writing is disingenuous.
- kortilla 9mo ago
  The thread is about not knowing anyone at all who thinks AI is plagiarizing.
  - jama211 9mo ago
    Yes, plagiarising text based content. No one in this thread meant graphics.

jama211 9mo ago

Yup, and no matter how flimsy an anti-ai article is, it will skyrocket to the top of HN because of it. It makes sense though, HN users are the most likely to feel threatened by LLMs, and therefore are more likely to be anxious about them. I don’t love ai either, but that’s the truth.

techpression 9mo ago
Strange, I find it quite the opposite, especially ”pro-ai” comments are often top of the list.
- jama211 9mo ago
  I think there’s a bit of both, with a valley in the middle

falkensmaize 9mo ago

“Anti-AI extremism”? Seriously? Where does this bizarre impulse to dogmatically defend LLM output come from? I don’t understand it. If AI is a reliable and quality tool, that will become evident without the need to defend it - it’s got billions (trillions?) of dollars backstopping it. The skeptical pushback is WAY more important right now than the optimistic embrace.

cthalupa 9mo ago
The fact that there is absurd AI hype right now doesn't mean that we should let equally absurd bullshit pass on the other side of the spectrum. Having a reasonable and accurate discussion about the benefits, drawbacks, side effects, etc. is WAY more important right now than being flagrantly incorrect in either direction. Meanwhile this entire comment thread is about what appears to be, as fumi2026 points out in their comment, a predatory marketing play by a startup hoping to capitalize on the exact sort of anti AI sentiment that you seem to think is important... just because there is pro AI sentiment? Naming and shaming everyday researchers based on the idea that they have let hallucinations slip into their paper all because your own AI model has decided thatit was AI so you can signal boost your product seems pretty shitty and exploitative to me, and is only viable as a product and marketing strategy because of the visceral anti AI sentiment in some places.
- falkensmaize 9mo ago
  “anti-ai sentiment” No that’s a straw man, sorry. Skepticism is not the same thing as irrational rejection. It means that I don’t believe you until you’ve proven with evidence that what you’re saying is true. The efficacy and reliability of LLMs requires proof. Ai companies are pouring extraordinary, unprecedented amounts of money into promoting the idea that their products are intelligent and trustworthy. That marketing push absolutely dwarfs the skeptical voices and that’s what makes those voices more important at the moment. If the researchers named have claims made against them that aren’t true, that should be a pretty easy thing for them to refute.
  - rustystump 9mo ago

neilv 9mo ago

> AI Overview > Plagiarism is using someone else's words, ideas, or work as your own without proper credit, a serious breach of ethics leading to academic failure, job loss, or legal issues, and can range from copying text (direct) to paraphrasing without citation (mosaic), often detected by software and best avoided by meticulous citation, quoting, and paraphrasing to show original thought and attribution.

aydyn 8mo ago
Not sure if I am correctly interpreting your implicit point but > Plagiarism is using someone else's words, Its right there. LLM is not "someone else"; its a very useful piece of software.

nick238 9mo ago

The LLM model and version should be included as an author so there's useful information about where the content came from.

BobbyJo 9mo ago

> Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree, so using that as an argument that parent's opinion is extreme is kind of circular reasoning. > I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. I don't see parent's opinions as anti-AI. It's more an argument about what AI is currently, and what research is supposed to be. AI is existing ideas. Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research.

aydyn 9mo ago
> TBF, most people in real life don't even know how AI works to any degree How about the authors who do research for NeurIPS? Do they know how AI works?
- Intermernet 9mo ago
  Who knows? Do NeurIPS have a pedigree of original, well sourced research dating back to before the advent of LLMs? We're at the point where both of the terms "AI" and "Experts" are so blurred it's almost impossible to trust or distrust anything without spending more time on due diligence than most subjects deserve. As the wise woman once said "Ain't nobody got time for that".
michaelt 9mo ago
> Research is supposed to be new ideas. If much of your research paper can be written by AI, I call into question whether or not it represents actual research. One would hope the authors are forming a hypothesis, performing an experiment, gathering and analysing results, and only then passing it to the AI to convert it into a paper. If I have a theory that, IDK, laser welds in a sine wave pattern are stronger than laser welds in a zigzag pattern - I've still got to design the exact experimental details, obtain all the equipment and consumables, cut a few dozen test coupons, weld them, strength test them, and record all the measurements. Obviously if I skipped the experimentation and just had an AI fabricate the results table, that's academic misconduct of the clearest form.

neilv 9mo ago

> Clearly, the authors in NeurIPS don't agree that using an LLM to help write is "plagiarism", Or they didn't consider that it arguably fell within academia's definition of plagiarism. Or they thought they could get away with it. Why is someone behaving questionably the authority on whether that's OK? > Nobody I know in real life, personally or at work, has expressed this belief. I have literally only ever encountered this anti-AI extremism (extremism in the non-pejorative sense) in places like reddit and here. It's not "anti-AI extremism". If no one you know has said, "Hey, wait a minute, if I'm copy&pasting this text I didn't write, and putting my name on it, without credit or attribution, isn't that like... no... what am I missing?" then maybe they are focused on other angles. That doesn't mean that people who consider different angles than your friends do are "extremist". They're only "extremist" in the way that anyone critical at all of 'crypto' was "extremist", to the bros pumping it. Not coincidentally, there's some overlap in bros between the two.

aydyn 9mo ago
> Why is someone behaving questionably the authority on whether that's OK? Because they are not. Using AI to help writing is something literally every company is pushing for.
- tsimionescu 9mo ago
  How is that relevant? Companies care very little about plagiarism, at least in the ethical sense (they do care if they think it's a legal risk, but that has turned out to not be the case with AI, so far at least).
  - aydyn 9mo ago
    What do you mean how is that relevant? Its a vast majority opinion in society that using ai to help you write is fine. Calling it "plagiarism" is a tiny minority online opinion.
    - tsimionescu 9mo ago

Culonavirus 9mo ago

Higher education is not free. People pay a shit ton of money to attend and also governments (taxpayers) invest a lot. Imagine offloading your research to an AI bot...