Certain companies train their AIs to plagiarise work by unnamed scholars, extending an AI history permeated by plagiarism and misattribution…

Certain companies train their AIs to plagiarise work by unnamed scholars, extending an AI history permeated by plagiarism and misattributions. It started a long time ago. In the 1900s, the old method of least squares (Gauss & Legendre, 1795-1805) was renamed "neural network," without citation of the original. In the 1950s, cybernetics was renamed “AI" by people who did not want to credit earlier AI pioneers such as Wiener. In the 2000s, AI techniques of the 1960s (Ivakhnenko & Lapa 1965, Amari 1967) were renamed “deep learning” without correct attribution. I could point out many additional cases. Some of the plagiarists even got awards. In the best interests of the field, and scientific honesty in general, it is time to stop this. Alas, in the end, the facts must always win. As long as the facts have not yet won, it's not yet the end. As Elvis put it, "Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away.” More tweets and reports on this: https://x.com/SchmidhuberAI/status/1865310820856393929 https://x.com/SchmidhuberAI/status/1735313711240253567 https://x.com/SchmidhuberAI/status/1606333832956973060 >sam altman: "we tried this because there were rumor on the internet" >rumor: math professor close to solving navier-stokes >the professor: using codex for a year >openai: has all his logs >checked every codex session tagged to N-S >found the most promising one >spun up 10,000 ag…

Source: David Ha (X) | 2026-09-09