News Google Bard Plagiarized Our Article, Then Apologized When Caught

[jeremyj_83]

You are accusing Bard of a certain mens rea but you have not established it is capable of such guilty knowledge or even forming intent. It is a machine, not a human. Would you have me file a complaint against Bowser in Super Marios Bros for throwing fireballs at you?

So you are saying that since it didn't, or cannot, know it was plagiarism that it cannot be plagiarism. Absolving the plagiarism due to programming. However, I already covered and disputed this earlier with the Accidental Plagiarism link. To refresh your memory here is the definition again.
"Accidental plagiarism occurs when a person neglects to cite their sources, or misquotes their sources, or unintentionally paraphrases a source by using similar words, groups of words, and/or sentence structure without attribution. (See example for mosaic plagiarism.) Students must learn how to cite their sources and to take careful and accurate notes when doing research. (See the Note-Taking section on the Avoiding Plagiarism page.) Lack of intent does not absolve the student of responsibility for plagiarism. Cases of accidental plagiarism are taken as seriously as any other plagiarism and are subject to the same range of consequences as other types of plagiarism." https://www.bowdoin.edu/dean-of-stu...nd-plagiarism/common-types-of-plagiarism.html

Is this definition from an academic setting and include possible punishment for students. Yes. Does this still define what accidental plagiarism is. Yes. Did Bard commit accidental plagiarism. YES!

 

[Endymio]

I have read MANY tech sites for more than 25 years. Sounds like the sites that you are referring to have little to no journalistic integrity or is run by a single person. Every site I have read will cite where they get things if it isn't their own work.

Oh really? I just checked the very latest story Toms posted; it includes a wealth of information, including performance figures, all without attribution of any sort.

"...the new Spatium M570 HS drive features higher random performance than the original M570: 1.4M/1.5M read/write 4K IOPS compared to 1.3M/1.16M read/write 4K IOPS. "

Of course, any rational person reading that realizes the entire article was simply a rewording of a company press release. But the fact remains that the source of the data isn't directly attributed; it's inferred.

I'll ask again: do you honestly believe Google's chatbot is capable of running hardware benchmarks on its own power?

This definition [is] from an academic setting and include possible punishment for students.

The point you miss is that every academic work is considered to be either original work, or an original synthesis of preexisting work. Asking a chatbot a question is no different than asking a nurse a medical question, or a police officer a legal question. You're not expecting original research from them, but simply an accurate answer.

Edit: I'll also add that, even in the strictest academic setting, not every fact and figure needs to be attributed. If I write in my Masters thesis that the speed of light is invariant, I don't need to attribute that to 'Einstein, A.'. No reasonable reader would believe I was attempting to usurp credit for it.

 

[ConfusedCounsel]

So you are saying that since it didn't, or cannot, know it was plagiarism that it cannot be plagiarism. Absolving the plagiarism due to programming. However, I already covered and disputed this earlier with the Accidental Plagiarism link. To refresh your memory here is the definition again.
"Accidental plagiarism occurs when a person neglects to cite their sources, or misquotes their sources, or unintentionally paraphrases a source by using similar words, groups of words, and/or sentence structure without attribution. (See example for mosaic plagiarism.) Students must learn how to cite their sources and to take careful and accurate notes when doing research. (See the Note-Taking section on the Avoiding Plagiarism page.) Lack of intent does not absolve the student of responsibility for plagiarism. Cases of accidental plagiarism are taken as seriously as any other plagiarism and are subject to the same range of consequences as other types of plagiarism." https://www.bowdoin.edu/dean-of-stu...nd-plagiarism/common-types-of-plagiarism.html

Is this definition from an academic setting and include possible punishment for students. Yes. Does this still define what accidental pl

So now you are accusing a robot of being. Negligent and doing something by accident. The standard for negligence is reasonably prudent person. Kindly, your argument lacks merit because you have not established a computer can be prudent. It can only due what it is coded to do. No law was broken. There is no cause of action here.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Oh really? I just checked the very latest story Toms posted; it includes a wealth of information, including performance figures, all without attribution of any sort.

"...the new Spatium M570 HS drive features higher random performance than the original M570: 1.4M/1.5M read/write 4K IOPS compared to 1.3M/1.16M read/write 4K IOPS. "

Of course, any rational person reading that article realizes the entire article was simply a rewording of a company press release. But the fact remains that the source of the data isn't directly attributed; it's inferred.

Your example is not any sort of plagiarism. In this case they are referring to released numbers and then stating the difference performance measurements. I take it you didn't notice they even LINKED their previous articles for reference. Did you look and see that each picture has this (Image credit: MSI) under it? These are all things that are done for citation and to avoid plagiarism.

I'll ask again: do you honestly believe Google's chatbot is capable of running hardware benchmarks on its own power?

It doesn't matter if chatbot is or is not capable of running the benchmarks itself. The use of language in its response indicates that these are numbers and tests that Google, the owner of the chatbot, has run and is allowing its chatbot to have access for discussion.

The point you miss is that every academic work is considered to be either original work, or an original synthesis of preexisting work. Asking a chatbot a question is no different than asking a nurse a medical question, or a police officer a legal question. You're not expecting original research from them, but simply an accurate answer.

Your examples are not the same at all. Asking a professional a question about a topic in their profession is completely different. They will be giving an answer from experience and schooling. There is also a possibility they might say something like "I just read a journal about that and this is what was said." This type of discussion happens all the time. Now a chatbot that is only able to search the internet for information and then paraphrases an article but doesn't even give the link is a different thing. That is the point that YOU are missing.

 

[jeremyj_83]

So now you are accusing a robot of being. Negligent and doing something by accident. The standard for negligence is reasonably prudent person. Kindly, your argument lacks merit because you have not established a computer can be prudent. It can only due what it is coded to do. No law was broken. There is no cause of action here.

I don't know how many times this can be said but you keep missing it. There is NO LAW for plagiarism. It is an ETHICS issue in writing. Companies and academia can hold their people to ethics violations which can be being fired or expulsion. Therefore this issue does not fall under the burden of proof that you would need for say a copyright infringement. All that is needed is the proof that the document was paraphrased or directly quoted WITHOUT citing the source and you have it committing plagiarism.

 

[ConfusedCounsel]

I don't know how many times this can be said but you keep missing it. There is NO LAW for plagiarism. It is an ETHICS issue in writing. Companies and academia can hold their people to ethics violations which can be being fired or expulsion. Therefore this issue does not fall under the burden of proof that you would need for say a copyright infringement. All that is needed is the proof that the document was paraphrased or directly quoted WITHOUT citing the source and you have it committing plagiarism.

Thank you for finally agreeing. No law was broken, so Bard is free to continue.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Thank you for finally agreeing. No law was broken, so Bard is free to continue.

I have NEVER said that a law was broken that is what YOU have been trying to prove. I DID prove that Bard committed plagiarism. However, you kept trying the circular argument of legality which had NO bearing on what was being discussed.

 

[ConfusedCounsel]

I have NEVER said that a law was broken that is what YOU have been trying to prove. I DID prove that Bard committed plagiarism. However, you kept trying the circular argument of legality which had NO bearing on what was being discussed.

Actually, I was saying no law was broken. It has all the bearing because you are asserting a wrong was committed. But there was no wrong committed under the law.

You are trying to hoist your ethics on a machine and a company. Sorry, but your ethics do not make an action wrong or right. As a society, we are bound by laws. You may feel something legal is unethical, but you cannot force that on others to comply.

You have not proved that Bard committed plagiarism, because you have not established it wrote a paper or acted as a journalist. Rather, it answered a question.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Actually, I was saying no law was broken. It has all the bearing because you are asserting a wrong was committed. But there was no wrong committed under the law.

You are trying to hoist your ethics on a machine and a company. Sorry, but your ethics do not make an action wrong or right. As a society, we are bound by laws. You may feel something legal is unethical, but you cannot force that on others to comply.

These are not just MY ethics. These are ethical standards by which anyone who has written a research paper in the last 50 years are held when submitting their papers.

You have not proved that Bard committed plagiarism, because you have not established it wrote a paper or acted as a journalist. Rather, it answered a question.

It answered a question using a paraphrase from a source in which it found online WITHOUT citing the original work. That is plagiarism. There is no way around the fact that is plagiarism. Don't forget that the AI is only able to use information it searches for answers it gives. Even the AI admitted that it committed plagiarism later in the questioning. These are the things I have been saying the entire time.

 

[Rogue Leader]

@Endymio @jeremyj_83

OK WE GOT IT.... Let it go.

 

[ConfusedCounsel]

@Endymio @jeremyj_83

OK WE GOT IT.... Let it go.

They cannot.

 

[Rogue Leader]

They cannot.

They will because if they continue this their posts will be deleted and they will be taking a break. So lets drop it.

 

[ConfusedCounsel]

They will because if they continue this their posts will be deleted and they will be taking a break. So lets drop it.

Can we all go back to making fun of Jensen, our future robot leader?

 

[Colif]

And furthermore, if you were to take, say, a piece by Shakespeare, move some words around and claim it's yours, it is still stealing. Or to be polite, plagiarism.

wonders if the project to get 1 million monkeys to type out a line of one of his creations by random is considered plagiarism.
Its such an old program I know I won't find any reference to it on Google, it was from a time before... okay, about 15 years ago, perhaps longer.

All I can find now is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

 

[bit_user]

A day later we asked Google Bard if it had ever plagiarized and it claimed that we had faked the screen shot below in response.

@apiltch , you expect it to remember its interactions with you? That's not realistic.

 

[bit_user]

The talk of plagiarism feels like sort of a side-show, to me. It's a big deal, sure. But, I have to wonder what if the Google Bard result:

• was factually accurate (or, at least consistent with its information sources)
• phrased the answer in its own words
• cited its sources

Would the author still have a problem with it? That would seem to address all the complaints in the article. I'm not sure how technically feasible that is, but it feels achievable.

And yet, I'm left with the sense that this wouldn't satisfy, because I think the complaints enumerated in the article are masking a core issue. The concern is likely that, if people can get answers to most of their questions from these search bots, why would most people bother taking the next step to visit sites like this one?

 

[bernardv]

OMG, it's a language model it's not a hardware testing site! This is how language models work. If you ask Chat GPT any question about anything you will get this kind of a reply - no source, but basically quoting someone else.

Super biased, uninformed, dumb article.

 

[Integr8d]

I’m sorry, Dave. I didn’t mean to turn off the oxygen to your sleep module.

Tee hee.