[ravi-delia]

Some would argue that, due to the unfortunately near-universal deprecation of paper authors after 70-90 years, the actual process of writing any particular paper is not and has never been reproducible. As opposed to experiments, which are reproducible and are not generally contained within the operating weights of a LLM nor the thoughts of a human.

[jpwagner]

Your observation, while accurate, is a tangent. The point of the bibliography in the context of an academic paper is to reference the academic merit of the work. In the case of science, this would be reproducible experiments (ideally).

Perhaps you would prefer to include the generated text source as an author.

[ravi-delia]

I'd rather not include it at all, for exactly that reason. It's just a writing tool- the paper is either correct or incorrect on the same basis as any other paper. We include bibliographies to ensure that the relevant scientific data is present, but I don't think there's any reason to say that a non-reproducible abstract isn't science

[kergonath]

It belongs in the acknowledgments, along with Bob’s wife who did a bit of proofreading, Steve McProfessor who had a chat with the authors once, and whatever software was used for the figures.

[clbrmbr]

This. It’s crazy that people are thinking we should _credit_ the model as if it were an author. It’s a tool, and should be usable without limit.

It would however be nice to have a mode where any output that matches some existing text in the training set could be highlighted, to help one avoid unintentional plagiarism.

[jpwagner]

Plagiarism will undergo a change in definition.

[anticensor]

Plagiarism used to be norm until mass similarity checking has been available.

[clbrmbr]

In published writing?

If so, we could pattern match historically, and discover the base rate of plagiarism.