this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2026
197 points (92.6% liked)

Technology

83725 readers
2305 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] badgermurphy@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, but if they can be demonstrated to ever plagiarize without attribution, and the default user behavior is to pencil-whip the output, which it is, then it becomes statistically certain that users are unwittingly plagiarizing other works.

Its like using a tool that usually bakes cookies, but every once in a great while, it knocks over the building its in. It almost never does that, though.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Plagiarism and copyright violation are two different things, one is ethical and the other is legal.

Copyright has a body of case law which helps determine when a work significantly infringes on the copyrighted work of another. Plagiarism has no body of law at all, it is an ethical construct and not a legal one.

You can plagiarize something that has no copyright protection and you can infringe on copyright protection without plagiarizing. They're not interchangeable concepts.

In your example, some institutions would not allow such a device to operate on their property but it would not be illegal to operate and the liability would be on the person and not on the oven.

To further strain the metaphor, Linus is saying that you can use (possibly) exploding ovens, because he isn't taking a moral stance on the topic, but you are responsible for the damages if they cause any because the legal systems require that this be the case.