Does AI plagiarize and take credit for work of others ?

In some respects I think it's fair for the user to do that research, i.e. make sure the AI output is valid and functioning, and isn't using anyone's code that may require permission or attribution.

Personally, I prefer to examine each line of AI-suggested code, to see if I can do it better, or tailor it to my style, and that ends up with some re-write, and guides the AI for subsequent lines of code too.

Except that no one is doing this, and I've already seen my own code being output verbatim by Copilot, even with the typo I made at the time.

Sure, that code is under a permissive license in terms of usage, but that license clearly requires citing me and the other contributors, which is NOT happening here.

How's that different from pre-AI though? If people want to abuse license terms, they would have done so pre-AI too.

I think those that respect license terms, will be taking care as they were before. Personally, I do that by not accepting large chunks of code, without going through each line, and guiding the AI on a per-line basis.

In your example, the student chose not to copy the name.

What if AI had printed all names/sources alongside the generated content? A user could still decide to ignore the license terms at those sources. In other words, those who want to plagiarize will do it anyway.

There really is no difference. Those same people would have done it pre-AI and post-AI, so why the hang-up that a user needs to make some effort to locate the sources if he/she makes the decision to use content?

The decision and repercussions (and clearly liability!) always rests with them and the firms that accepted the content into their codebase, no-one is suggesting anyone can be excused for getting it wrong, just because AI might have not provided sources (or might have provided incorrect sources).

I won't be able to persuade you further... but I leave you with this... "It's unfair to say the student cheated on the entire exam.  After all he didn't need to peer over anyone's shoulder when he was writing his name."

Some of the arguments that suggest IP violation are unreasonable, because some of the AIs do not regurgitate verbatim; they instead try to generate output that suits your own coding style and function prototypes. I think it's fair game to learn from publicly available content if it's retold in different words/syntax. Humans do that each time they read a copyrighted article in a newspaper and then tell their friends about what's going on. No-one suggests they are violating IP.

It may well turn out that some AI's will never be able to cite all sources for their generative output. Maybe we need to change our perspective on things, because it's pragmatic that some of that responsibility will still be in the user's hands for now, not AI.

Although I began my last response asking that we set aside the responsibilities of the individual user aside for a moment, I do agree with you that the user does have a responsibility for due diligence... and yes, I think for the most part big tech shouldn't be liable for any negative outcomes from search results or AI generated code.... but I still don't think they should be let off the hook for violating intellectual property.

Although I began my last response asking that we set aside the responsibilities of the individual user aside for a moment, I do agree with you that the user does have a responsibility for due diligence... and yes, I think for the most part big tech shouldn't be liable for any negative outcomes from search results or AI generated code.... but I still don't think they should be let off the hook for violating intellectual property.

In your example, the student chose not to copy the name.

What if AI had printed all names/sources alongside the generated content? A user could still decide to ignore the license terms at those sources. In other words, those who want to plagiarize will do it anyway.

There really is no difference. Those same people would have done it pre-AI and post-AI, so why the hang-up that a user needs to make some effort to locate the sources if he/she makes the decision to use content?

The decision and repercussions (and clearly liability!) always rests with them and the firms that accepted the content into their codebase, no-one is suggesting anyone can be excused for getting it wrong, just because AI might have not provided sources (or might have provided incorrect sources).

I won't be able to persuade you further... but I leave you with this... "It's unfair to say the student cheated on the entire exam.  After all he didn't need to peer over anyone's shoulder when he was writing his name."

Some of the arguments that suggest IP violation are unreasonable, because some of the AIs do not regurgitate verbatim; they instead try to generate output that suits your own coding style and function prototypes. I think it's fair game to learn from publicly available content if it's retold in different words/syntax. Humans do that each time they read a copyrighted article in a newspaper and then tell their friends about what's going on. No-one suggests they are violating IP.

It may well turn out that some AI's will never be able to cite all sources for their generative output. Maybe we need to change our perspective on things, because it's pragmatic that some of that responsibility will still be in the user's hands for now, not AI.