[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.