Here’s the wikipedia definition

Plagiarism is the representation of another person’s language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions as one’s own original work.

So, I’m afraid that my definition is closer to consensus than yours.

If word gets out that you used a ghostwriter, you’re gonna get in trouble for plagiarism. That’s the thing they’ll accuse you of.

While consent is a part of why plagiarism is shitty, it’s not what makes something plagiarism. You can check it the other way around: if I’m legitimately quoting someone, do I need explicit consent, or is it implied (if it’s published work)?

About the BSD stuff: yeah, it might not be illegal and consential, but both of these things aren’t necessary for plagiarism.

What are you talking about? I’ve given you several examples of plagiarism outside of a legal concept, which means that there are non-legalistic definitions.

Here’s another one: copying someone’s homework is plagiarism. It’s not illegal, though.

I’d argue that most acts of plagiarism are actually legal, but can result in getting your title revoked. That’s not because of an IP law violation, since you don’t have ownership of an argument in an academic text.

Letting a ghostwriter write an academic paper is plagiarism, too, btw. How would that make sense in an IP law context, if the ghost writer not obtaining the IP is the whole point?

I think your legalistic view of the world is quite limiting.

It’s not illegal to rephrase what someone wrote in a book and pass it off as your own work. You can’t “own” a cultural analysis. It’s still plagiarism.

There’s more than a legal definition of plagiarism.

Plagiarism is when you sell the work of others as your own without attribution. There are bucketloads of examples of legal plagiarism.

I’m pretty sure that everything H. Bomberguy discussed in his plagiarism video was legal, for example.

Ok, then call it “plagiarising”.

Yeah, but the real world usually revolves around more complicated questions than “do you die from lava?”

That still only covers a tiny fraction of what is reported. Objectivity in the real world is an illusion.

The joke is that not everything (or almost nothing) that gets reported can be viewed from a lens of “objective truth”. Your examples wouldn’t be able to give me information of a statement that someone did, or if something happened… anywhere.

I’m still waiting for the bill that states what happened in Nice last week. /j

You can also just download any binary file you find online and run it. Or use any install.sh script you happen to find anywhere.

Package managers are simply a convenient offer to manage packages with their dynamically linked libraries and keep them up to date (important for security). But it’s still just an offer.

The alignment problem is already the wrong narrative, as it implies agency where there is none. All that talk about “alignment problem” draws focus from AI ethics (not a term I made up).

Read the article.

Then you highlight why AI Safety is important by linking a blog post about the dangers of poorly thought-out AI systems

Have you read the article? it clearly states the difference of AI safety vs AI ethics and argues why the formerare quacks and the latter is ignored.

If you read AI Safety trolley problems and think they are warning you about an ai god, you misunderstood the purpose of the discussion.

Have you encountered what Sam Altman or Elsevier Yudkowsky claim about AI safety? It’s literally “AI might make humanity go extinct” shit.

The fear mongering Sam Altman is doing is a sales tactic. That’s the hypeman part.

I know of him and I enjoy his videos.

Still, fearmongering for a god AI that might kill us all is both unscientific and distracts from the real harm so-called AI is already causing.

This post is especially ironic, since AI and its “safety researchers” make climate change worse by ridiculously increasing energy demands.

So-called “AI safety” researchers are nothing but hypemen for AI companies.

No parallel universes employed => Access denied

deleted by creator

Here’s an actual AI evangelist/researcher making a point how open source can’t apply to neural networks (or LLMs)

Edit: Also, I’m not talking about the assets. I’m tal*ing about the ability to recreate. If you have the Doom assets, you can build it yourself.

Are you serious?

You can read all the other comments which explained why it is not open source. You can’t really retrain the model without petabytes of data. Even if you “train” stuff on your dataset: it’s more like tweaking the model weights a bit, rather than building the model from scratch.

“Open source” is PR talk by Meta and deepseek.

Just regurgitating propaganda.

No u.

Communism is defined by worker control of the means of production

No, that’s socialism. Communism is a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

Also, the workers in China aren’t in control of the means of production. The bureaucrats and capitalists are.

That’s how they lifted 800 million people out of poverty

While I applaud the better living standards: I see no contradiction to capitalism. Marx himself wrote:

The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?

Simply participating in markets does not make a country capitalist

No, but state ownership of the means of production makes a country state capitalist.

Let’s come back to your initial point: you accused me of dismissing an LLM, because it is “communist”. Comrade, I’m an anarcho-communist. I dislike all the hypetrain riding, water gobbling sharlatans in the current so-called “AI” bubble: Altman, Pashaj (don’t know how to write him), Zuckerberg and Musk. I like it if the market get disrupted, but I don’t like it if the AI trend continues to wreak havoc on nature.

Btw: how is deepseek “energy efficient”?

And also: All that has squat to do with open source or not.