But show me a case of unacknowledged chat-bot-assisted writing that isn't a perfectly clear case of plagiarism by this definition?
— bongo fury
How does that lead to such a clear conclusion? — Christoffer
You're talking more about the philosophy of authorship and not specifically plagiarism as a legal phenomena. And it's in court where such definitions will find their final form. — Christoffer
Someone using it to generate an entire text might not be the author, — Christoffer
Just asking the LLM to do all the work is a clear case, but this is not the best use of LLMs for text generation and not really how it's used by those actually using it as a tool. — Christoffer
You need to define in what intended use-case of an LLM you attribute to making plagiarism, is operating in. — Christoffer
And also include a comparison to how a humans process available information into their own text and when that person is stepping over into plagiarism. — Christoffer
What happens when a human accidentally produces exact copies of sentences from memory, without even knowing that they do so? — Christoffer
How does that differ? — Christoffer
Add to that the improvements of LLMs and the future scenario in which LLMs have become better than humans at not copying training data text directly and always providing citation when referencing direct information. — Christoffer
And if the systems start to operate better than humans at avoiding plagiarism and using these models as assistive tools might even help avoid accidental plagiarism, what then? — Christoffer
In the end, the plagiarism will be attributed to the human, not the machine. — Christoffer
Or should we blame the computer of plagiarism for the use of CTRL+C, CTRL+V and not the human inputting that intention? — Christoffer
(quote from Kimhi)since Pa does not display an assertion, — Pierre-Normand
it cannot be the same, because then
"P; if P then A; therefore A"
would be the same as
"If (P and (if P then A)) then A",
and it was precisely Lewis Carroll's discovery (in "What the Tortoise said to Achilles") that it was not.
In Principles of Mathematics Russell falls into confusion through a desire to say both that, e.g., 'Peter is a Jew' is the same proposition when it occurs in 'If Peter is a Jew, then Andrew is a Jew', and that it is not. It must be the same, because otherwise modus ponens would not be valid; it cannot be the same, because then 'Peter is a Jew; if Peter is a Jew, Andrew is a Jew; therefore Andrew is a Jew' would be the same as 'If both Peter is a Jew and if Peter is a Jew, then Andrew is a Jew, then Andrew is a Jew', and it was precisely Lewis Carroll's discovery (in 'What the Tortoise said to Achilles') that it was not. Frege provides a solution by saying that the sense of the two occurrences of 'Peter is a Jew' (the thought expressed by them) is the same, but that the assertoric force is present in one and lacking in the other. — Michael Dummett: Frege, Philosophy of Language, page 304
Doesn't he mean 'prepended' rather than 'appended'? — TonesInDeepFreeze
So which sentence is attributing falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself? — RussellA
Are you sure? — AmadeusD
Quine was presumably referring to the stratification of types originally proposed by Russell, — sime
Yes, he's saying there may be a hierarchy of references. That may be relevant to clarification of his drift. — bongo fury
I'm not quite sure what kind of objection [to the liar sentence] is being sustained? If any. And who had raised it, and where? — bongo fury
Does he mean "this sentence is false", or does he mean ""this sentence is false" is false" — RussellA
What would it mean for the sentence ""this sentence is false" is false" to be no longer attributing falsity to itself? — RussellA
I interpret Quine as saying that in the expression "this sentence is false" is false, the outside sentence is "this sentence is false". — RussellA
There's no paradox because, as Quine says, "this sentence is false" is referring to something other than itself. — RussellA
In an effort to clear up this antinomy it has been protested that the phrase `This sentence', so used, refers to nothing. [Trolls explode with glee.] This is claimed on the ground that you cannot get rid of the phrase by supplying a sentence that is referred to. For what sentence does the phrase refer to? The sentence 'This sentence is false'. If, accordingly, we supplant the phrase `This sentence' by a quotation of the sentence referred to, we get: ``This sentence is false' is false'. But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox. — Quine, The Ways of Paradox
what sentence does the phrase refer to? The sentence 'This sentence is false'.
Is that a joke? — TonesInDeepFreeze
Only if you think A→B does not stand for Not A without B. — Lionino
So it's intuitive that
¬(A→B) means A without B. — bongo fury
it's intuitive that
A→B means not(A without B). — bongo fury
yet ¬(A→B) and ¬B entail A. — Lionino
If A does not imply B and [regardless of whether] B is false, can we really infer that A is true? — Lionino
¬(A→B) means A without B
B is true
Therefore A is true
Does that make intuitive sense to you? — Lionino
What about the following example?
Rain without wetness
Wetness
Therefore rain. — Lionino
here is the trouble: if ¬(A→B) is true and A is false, B is true. — Lionino
to posit nested sets — Count Timothy von Icarus
Surely the problem is the one frequently pointed out, with the word "simulate" being ambiguous between "describe or theoretically model" and "physically replicate or approximate". — bongo fury
high-fidelity ancestor simulations — Michael
I'm inclined to say than that a thing's effects are signs of it. Directness then should probably be looked at from a phenomenological perspective. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Photography has almost no reality; it is almost a hundred per cent picture. And painting always has reality: you can touch the paint; it has presence; — perhaps
I once took small photographs and then smeared them with paint. That partly resolved the problem, — perhaps
Anatomical diagrams are a good example here, — Count Timothy von Icarus
a thing's properties, "what it is." — Count Timothy von Icarus
Things are phenomenologicaly present in pictures. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Isn't this kind of side-stepping the debate and saying "You have your truth, I have mine" — AmadeusD
What would a "broken" chain be? — Michael
Is seeing my face in a mirror an "unbroken" chain and so "direct" perception of my face? — Michael
Is watching football on TV an "unbroken" chain and so "direct" perception of a football match? — Michael
I'm not even sure which properties you're claiming to be "presented in and constitutive of the photo". — Michael
I guess, the same work as "actually"? — bongo fury
What is the word “directly” doing here? — Michael
Direct and indirect then both apply, in different senses: direct because connecting in an unbroken chain; indirect because involving links and transformations. — bongo fury
Do you mean that some part of the computer running the game would need the detail?
— bongo fury
It would need to simulate the NPC down to the biochemical level. The NPC would need to be conscious to believe anything, and not just appear to believe stuff. — noAxioms
The NPC in the computer game would need that amazing level of detail to actually believe stuff (like the fact that he's not being simulated), and not just appear (to an actual player) to believe stuff. — noAxioms
A simulation is a running process, not just a map. — noAxioms