Here's an article about plagiarism using AI for assistance

Image generated using deepai.org

I have some strong feelings about this, but I will try to remain informative. In doing so, I have used an AI called ChatGPT for assistance in the generation of some text, which I shall quote in this article. Also, I will use an AI generated photo, I do not do this regularly. I am only doing it for this article because it just fits. I technically don't have to cite that image because they say this on their own website:

"Who owns the output?
The images are considered public domain, that is, they have no owner.

That is not the case for all AI-generated content. The organization can decide whether or not claim their generated products. And there are local laws in place that affect copyrights. I decided to cite and notify for transparency reasons. I apologize for my grammar, it's not very good. I suck at English, it's even my native language, but I'm trying to become a better writer and blogger without Grammarly, funnily enough.

As you all know, there's a huge debate on AI and how it influences Hive. That is healthy, it is good to have these talks. Humans all live very different lives and that can lead to a large difference in opinions. I personally don't find that using AI is very sinister, if used properly. It's a tool, like anything else in this world. Humans are fantastic at creating tools for making life easier. Writing can be one of those difficult things that we want to overcome. So like any other situation, people tend to use a tool for convenience. Now, I've never personally had AI generate an article for me. But I have used it to talk to and brainstorm about ideas.

I'm not gonna copy and paste my whole conversation with it, but I will quote it using my prompts and the answers from the AI. Since there is debate online, let's have some definitions.

Here is my first prompt: What is considered plagiarism in reference to you and generated articles? ChatGPT's blinking cursor beat for a second or so and then it spoke, or well-typed, "In the context of generated articles, it's important to note that the [articles] produced by [AI] can be considered original work, but only if it is created from scratch and not based on... copyrighted materials." Also, writing right after that, "using AI-generated content without proper attribution or permission can still be considered plagiarism." That sets up the basis of what I want to talk about. Proper attribution towards those you get information from. We don't have to write articles scholarly-like and all, but give credit where credit is due. From now on, I will definitely pay attention to what I post and attribute names properly to their work.

Now, I'm not calling for policing someone for past mistakes. Nor am I saying AI-generated content is bad. I'm just saying that if you use it, you should say what you are using because it's not good to lie. It's not good to make people think that you created something from scratch but didn't. Maybe talk to the AI you use and ask it questions. I did about plagiarism, and like all topics, ChatGPT has a lot to say, "...if a human used me to generate [content] and then copied and pasted the [same content] without proper citation or attribution, that would be... plagiarism." Listen to the thing you use, would ya? It's not human, but it definitely has answers in a fast and timely manner, sometimes faster than google because you don't have to peruse links.

Another main point is that it's your responsibility to not plagiarize someone else's work, even if it's AI (ChatGPT 2023). So what if it's just code. So what if it's open-source code. Copying is copying and should be frowned upon. The AI offered some answers when I asked about other possibilities that could impact plagiarism. One of those possibilities is that the AI code was open source. Whether or not it is human or code always cite your sources. ChatGPT aptly stated some reasons, one of those being, "The use of open source AI code [by someone] does not... change the definition or consequences of plagiarism. Just like with any other source... it's important to properly attribute and cite the original source of the code when using it in your own work." It says it right here. For ethical, honorable, creative blogging everyone should try their best to become better. And one of those problems I see lately is what I'm writing about today. To cite your sources.

So, now looking at it. Have I generated an article because I used AI for a prompt? I don't think so. Is this work considered quality content? I would hope so. Where does this place me? I personally find that because so much of what I wrote is from my own thoughts. That this article is mine. I used a tool to assist me, but still, it was not copied and pasted other than the quotes, which I cited to the best of my ability.

I hope that I have added something to the conversation that is going on everywhere. I want there to be some middle ground between the two sides, and I want this article to embody that idea. You can use AI whilst also being original in your creations. And I want to emphasize that I don't necessarily think that people should be strictly punished for some small offenses, especially if they change and learn. Just cite your sources, it doesn't have to be like my citation at the bottom. Or my citations throughout my blog. I was just being extra.

Last but not least, I did ask for permission to use the quotes from ChatGPT. It kindly answered with, "Yes, you are welcome to quote me in your blog article!"

The source is below. I believe I have included the link to the conversation. As always, thanks for the read everyone. I appreciate each and every upvote and comment. I love you all and I love this community.