Google Bard Plagiarized Our Article, Then Apologized When Caught
-
AI will ruin social media, search sites, forums such as this, along with many other technoligies and content applications. Some say AI is the beginning of the end of human endeavors – Skynet anyone?
-
Tomshardware has been assimilated!
Show our AI Overlords some respect!
-
To correct the article, if they reworded your results, then it wasn’t plagiarism. You can’t copyright facts and data — only a specific expression of them.
-
AI will ruin social media, search sites, forums such as this, along with many other technoligies and content applications.
Keep your eye on that horseless carriage thing, too. It’s going to wind up killing a lot of people, mark my words.
-
Very unfortunate behavior from Bard here. It’s good that it revealed its source, but the fact that you had to ask means that Bard has zero hesitation to lift this site — or any other site’s — content without attribution. If Bard didn’t explicitly do the testing itself then it has zero right to claim “we” or “I” or any possession of performance results.
AI like Siri, Alexa, Cortana, and similar answer your queries by saying they found relevant information and pointing you towards sources. Bard, ChatGPT, DallE, Mid Journey, Stable Diffusion, and the other AIs that are part of the current crop answer your queries by providing relevant information as if it comes from themselves. Sources are obfuscated or only available upon request. I don’t feel icky when I ask Alexa something, but I do when looking at ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion. The older AIs seem intended to help people on both sides of a query connect while the current AIs seem intended to replace people by presenting information as their own. We need to get back to helping people.
-
To correct the article, if they reworded your results, then it wasn’t plagiarism. You can’t copyright facts and data — only a specific expression of them.
You cant plagiarize facts, that is correct.
However, you absolutely can plagiarize data. Independent in house testing, in any field, is your own work. Anyone using said work without permission or credit is 100% plagiarism.
You can compile data and make your own research, but reference specific data points and presenting the exact same data without any modification is not “fair use”.
Plagiarism and copyright are two very different things as well. -
To correct the article, if they reworded your results, then it wasn’t plagiarism. You can’t copyright facts and data — only a specific expression of them.
True that facts cannot be copyright, but data/observations can be. Example: “the CPUs had a 12% difference” is not a fact, this is a set of data observed in testing by Tom’s Hardware, a different CPU of the same model may observe a different data result, etc… There for the work/effort put forward by Tom’s to acquire this data set is proprietary to their specific equipment and there for can be copyrighted!
-
Two executives at Google:
E1: How do we avoid getting nailed for plagiarism?
E2: Blame the Bard bot.
Reply