3 ms·
Sure, you can't claim ownership of ideas, but if you verbatim repeat other people's content as if it is your own, and are unable to attribute it to its original
by voidUpdate 8mo ago
Sure, you can't claim ownership of ideas, but if you verbatim repeat other people's content as if it is your own, and are unable to attribute it to its original creator, is that not a bit shitty? That's what LLMs are doing
- zarzavat 8mo agoIf a human learns to code by reading other people's code, and then writes their own new code, should they have to attribute all the code they ever read? Plagiarism is a concept from academia because in academia you rise through the ranks by publishing papers and getting citations. Using someone else's work but not citing them breaks that system. The real world doesn't work like that: your value to the world is how much you improve it. It would not help the world if everyone were forced to account for all the shoulders they have stood on like academics do. Rather, it's sufficient to merely attribute your most substantial influences and leave it at that.
- voidUpdate 8mo agoIf a human copies someone else's code verbatim, they should attribute the source, yes. If they learn from it and write original code, no, they don't have to cite every single piece of code they've ever read
- hnfong 8mo agoYes, you've stated the current social and legal rule we have to follow. But I don't think you've given any moral justification for the rule, and in particular, why LLMs (who are not humans and have no legal rights or obligations) have to follow it.
- AnimalMuppet 8mo agoBut some company owns the LLM, and they have legal rights and obligations. You don't get to use AI to launder breaking the law.
- voidUpdate 8mo agoIs "taking credit for something someone else did is not very nice" not enough moral justification for you?