Forget AI Borrowing: Human Writers Take Stuff Too
December 20, 2023
This essay is the work of a dumb dinobaby. No smart software required.
I am beginning to think that most people take short cuts, assuming no one will know or take the time to do old-fashioned research. To the embarrassing actions at Stanford University and Harvard College, I can add the work of a person identified as Kristin Loberg. How do I know about this individual. I read the LA Times’s story “Nine Months after Scandal, Publishers Are Still Sorting Out a Plagiarism Mess.”
Boiling down a fairly long write up, it seems that some famous authors need people to help them write their books. These people are ghostwriters. Ms. Loberg is one of these individuals, and it appears that she borrowed information from others. The article includes this statement from Ms. Loberg:
“I accept complete responsibility for any errors my work may have contained,” Loberg said at the time in a statement that acknowledged “allegations of plagiarism” and apologized to writers whose work was not properly credited.
That’s clear enough. But the issue that concerns me is that the article includes this factoid:
Publishers pledged to review all of her books and take corrective steps where necessary. In the nine months since, they have been quietly cleaning up an editorial mess that some industry observers say is partly of their own making.
A famous 16th-century author ponders this question, “Should I rip off Kit Marlowe or that rowdy Ben Jonson character?” Thanks, MSFT Copilot. I did not know Shakespeare was a forbidden word. Poor Will. I am glad I did not ask about Nick Bottom’s wall comment.
I asked myself, “What do publishers do if they don’t check what the authors write for accuracy and the absence of legal time bombs?” And what about the “author,” the person who craves appearing on podcasts and possibly getting five minutes with a cable news talking head? The author is supposed to be informed about a topic, have great insights, and be someone who does not pay another person to do the work. My hunch is that my expectation of an ink-stained wretch is out of date.
The LA Times’s article reports on good news. Here is an example from the write up:
Simon & Schuster said it has released updated versions of six books by Agus and Gupta with the problematic passages either reworked or excised. Loberg’s name is scrubbed from the credits and acknowledgments in the latest editions on Amazon’s Kindle store.
Classic modern management: Take action after the horse has fled and the barn burned, leaving ashes and evidence of sub-standard construction methods.
The LA Times took action. An illustration in the article says:
A Times investigation of books by Dr. David Agus found more than 120 passages that are virtually identical to the language and structure of previously published material from other sources.
It is amazing what a journalism professional can accomplish with a search engine, some time, and patience. Apparently ghost writers, publishers, authors, and other people in the publishing chain are too busy to do actual work to ensure that a book is not chock full of pirate material.
Have the publishers learned their lessons? Have the authors who don’t write their semi-original books? Does anyone care?
That last question is the best one I asked. I know the answer, however. Not too many care and an increasing number of people could not find plagiarism or fabricated information.
Encouraging.
Stephen E Arnold, December 20, 2023
Comments
One Response to “Forget AI Borrowing: Human Writers Take Stuff Too”
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
It is the logical result of the nonsensical and blind application of extreme liberism. Compressing costs, outsurcing core task to chip, incompetent operator is endangering an even more complex society