A new report from plagiarism detector Copyleaks found that 60% of OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 outputs contained some form of plagiarism.

Why it matters: Content creators from authors and songwriters to The New York Times are arguing in court that generative AI trained on copyrighted material ends up spitting out exact copies.

  • OpenStars@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    But also, there is far less training data to mix and match responses from, so naively I would expect a higher plagiarism rate, by its very nature.

    Less than 2% of the world’s population has a doctorate. According to the US Census Bureau, only 1.2% of the US population has a PhD.

    source

      • OpenStars@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Surely many who have them received them from elsewhere before immigration to America, and likewise the proportion of immigrants who have them I would expect to be oversized. Americans tend to be more greedy than anything else and don’t put in the effort required for such small (financial) rewards.

        Also, those with PhDs tend to congregate into certain areas that support those jobs, i.e. cities but not even a goodly number of those so much; plus smaller college towns too ofc. As such, many in the general populace might rarely if ever run into one for the largest majority of their lives, unless traveling specifically to those areas for some reason?

        And ofc rural areas are far larger, geographically speaking, than places where a person with a PhD would (likely) go. So you could randomly pick a spot on a map 100 times and never manage to find someone with a PhD anywhere within tens of miles, I would expect - although that line of thinking reveals my own biases: do most educated farmers stop at like an MS and just follow up with their own (possibly even extensive) self studies, or go all the way to PhDs while working their actual farms? (I doubt it bc it does not sound practical, and that is a hallmark of farmers afaik, but I could be wrong…) Anyway, I expect the unequal distribution is a contributing / exasperating factor to the general rarity.

    • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Ironically, in the article, the link to the original Census source of the 1.2% datum is now dead.

      Also, it’s 2.1% now (for people over 25), according to the Wikipedia article’s source: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2018/demo/education-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html

      Edit: the Wikipedia citation is from 2018 data. The 2023 tables are here: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2022/demo/educational-attainment/cps-detailed-tables.html

      Citation party!