← Back to context Comment by ironman1478 8 hours ago It is theft under common sense. 5 comments ironman1478 Reply conz 7 hours ago Only in the sense that you reading a book from the library also constitutes theft of knowledge. Does it? 20k 7 hours ago If I stole someone's private research notes and republished them loosely in my own words, they'd correctly be pissedThis was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definition paxys 39 minutes ago They are not “private research notes” if they are generated by an LLM. logicchains 5 hours ago >This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definitionIt was not stolen, it was willingly given. 1 reply →
conz 7 hours ago Only in the sense that you reading a book from the library also constitutes theft of knowledge. Does it? 20k 7 hours ago If I stole someone's private research notes and republished them loosely in my own words, they'd correctly be pissedThis was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definition paxys 39 minutes ago They are not “private research notes” if they are generated by an LLM. logicchains 5 hours ago >This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definitionIt was not stolen, it was willingly given. 1 reply →
20k 7 hours ago If I stole someone's private research notes and republished them loosely in my own words, they'd correctly be pissedThis was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definition paxys 39 minutes ago They are not “private research notes” if they are generated by an LLM. logicchains 5 hours ago >This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definitionIt was not stolen, it was willingly given. 1 reply →
logicchains 5 hours ago >This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definitionIt was not stolen, it was willingly given. 1 reply →
Only in the sense that you reading a book from the library also constitutes theft of knowledge. Does it?
If I stole someone's private research notes and republished them loosely in my own words, they'd correctly be pissed
This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definition
They are not “private research notes” if they are generated by an LLM.
>This was unpublished research that was stolen, and constitutes plagiarism and academic fraud by even the strictest definition
It was not stolen, it was willingly given.
1 reply →