Do you have a source for that being the key difference? Where did you learn your words, I don’t see the names of your teachers cited here. The English language has existed a while, why aren’t you giving a citation every time you use a word that already exists in a lexicon somewhere? We have a name for people who don’t coin their own words for everything and rip off the words that other painstakingly evolved over a millennia of history. Find your own graphemes.

▲

latexr a day ago | parent [-]

What a profoundly bad faith argument. We all understand that singular words are public domain, they belong to everyone. Yet when you arrange them in a specific pattern, of which there are infinite possibilities, you create something unique. When someone copies that arrangement wholesale and claims they were the first, that’s what we refer to as plagiarism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9huNI5sBd8

▲

ineedasername 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s not bad faith argument. It’s an attempt to shake thinking that is profoundly stuck by taking that thinking to an absurd extreme. Until that’s done, quite a few people aren’t able to see past the assumptions they don’t know they making. And by quite a few people I mean everyone, at different times. A strong appreciation for the absurd will keep a person’s thinking much sharper.

▲

stOneskull 13 hours ago | parent [-]

>> They key difference between plagarism and building on someone's work is whether you say, "this based on code by linsey at github.com/socialnorms" or "here, let me write that for you."

> [i want to] shake thinking that is profoundly stuck [because they] aren’t able to see past the assumptions they don’t know they making

what is profoundly stuck, and what are the assumptions?

▲

macinjosh 11 hours ago | parent [-]

That your brain training on all the inputs it sees and creating output is fundamentally more legitimate than a computer doing the same thing.

	▲	Arelius 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Copyright isn't some axiom, but to quote wikipedia: "Copyright laws allow products of creative human activities, such as literary and artistic production, to be preferentially exploited and thus incentivized." It's a tool to incentivse human creative expression. Thus it's entirely sensible to consider and treat the output from computers and humans differently. Especially when you consider large differences between computers and humans, such as how trivial it is to create perfect duplicates of computer training.

▲

tscherno 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It is possible that the concept of intellectual property could be classified as a mistake of our era by the history teachers of future generations.

	▲	latexr 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Intellectual property is a legal concept; plagiarism is ethical. We’re discussing the latter.

▲

jacquesm a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This particular user does that all the time. It's really tiresome.

	▲	ineedasername 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It’s tiresome to see unexamined assumptions and self-contradictions tossed out by a community that can and often does do much better. Some light absurdism often goes further and makes clear that I’m not just trying to setup a strawman since I’ve already gone and made a parody of my own point.