Lazy reporting. I reckon they gave ChatGPT the video URL and asked it to write an article about it. AIs like ChatGPT can scrape the subtitles from YouTube videos to generate a transcript, then reword it enough to create a draft of a news article.
Thats why I’m saying borders on. I know it’s not technically plagiarizing, but they really did just lift the video into text form and call it their own article.
Yes they credit her, but what did they actually add themselves?
Huh, this borders on plagiarism.
This article is essentially a transcription of this video https://youtu.be/WnzR5aOElvw
Also, how are you gonna plagiarize Hannah Fry? She’s the fucking best.
Would that not make her more likely to be plagiarised? Why would you plagiarise a boring idiot, what would be the point?
It’s more of a “the audacity…”, not a “why would you…”
The article is about Professor Hannah Fry’s work.
That would be the same Professor Hannah Fry in the video…
The article is essentially a text version of that video.
Lazy reporting. I reckon they gave ChatGPT the video URL and asked it to write an article about it. AIs like ChatGPT can scrape the subtitles from YouTube videos to generate a transcript, then reword it enough to create a draft of a news article.
Yep this.
Ok. Still not plagiarism though. They’ve referred to the original author and credited their work.
Other post is correct. At worst it’s lazy clickbaiting.
Thats why I’m saying borders on. I know it’s not technically plagiarizing, but they really did just lift the video into text form and call it their own article.
Yes they credit her, but what did they actually add themselves?