Which is in no way surprising. Re-implementing well-working, _old_ tools is just dumb.

Searching what is already there. Obviously. That will require putting their new stuff in there and then the LLM assholes steal that.

This is fully accusatory because you make sweeping statements about things you do not understand. Not a good thing to do.

And even if your movie is LLM generated, you still need ideas and creativity to make it. On the other hand, soap-operas are an early form of pre-LLM slop.

1. Untrue in general. There is always a mix of empirical and theoretical research and Math is no different.
2. You are just trying to confuse the issue with nonsense.

If you steal ideas, the Math community will be even harsher on you than other scientific communities, because having good ideas and insights in Math is harder than in most other areas due to a often very long time you need to even understand the state-of-the-art. And stealing ideas is exactly why you always need to state all your sources. It is to make it exactly clear what your specific contribution is. If you do not publish your sources, you have no claim to the result you state being yours. That is not how Math or other theoretical research works.

Because you always add a list of literature references and the complete argument for elementary facts. Surely.

It is. The additional problem with a badly restrained police is that you always slide towards a police state, where the police has no accountability and can do whatever they like as long as they still serve the rich and powerful. ICE is a nice example of that, even when it now looks like they may not get away with all the murdering, raping, child-abusing, etc. that they did.

Hence the police must be restricted carefully, no doubt about that. Also makes it more expensive. But European standard is that cops have no immunity, just some special powers. They are typically required to get a bachelor’s degree before they are allowed to do anything and that weeds out most of the assholes that are just after power. Sure, there are still bad apples, but they have a high chance of getting caught and punished.

Yes. I have observed that as well. Especially when you ask for something more obscure the LLM may have an idea from its training data and give you an actually correct statement, but it cannot find the sources, because apparently the way to find them is to do a web-search after. And then sometimes hallucinate that what they found are sources for the statements made, but they are not.

A rather crass LLM limit that makes verification of claims hard and sometimes practically impossible. Because LLMs hallucinate, this basically makes LLMs useless for anything were they cannot get you the sources. Incidentally, that would be the most valuable use for "better search" and it is just there where LLMs fail frequently. Hence what LLMs excel at is answering simple questions. But these are better answered with a regular web-search, because that gives you better context and is mich better for learning and remembering stuff.

The result may stand, but the claim that it is your result will not unless the citations are there and complete. Which, incidentally, is what the story is about?

A completely worthless argument because nobody knows how humans (well, some humans) can generate original thoughts.

If you perform a crass enough ethics violation, many universities can remove your PhD. Also happens in other fields. I know of a law PhD being removed because the person robbed a bank.

Many other countries do not have it and they are not dens of lawlessness.

Indeed. Also, stealing somebody else's work in this way is basically career-death for academics. They may lose their job and become unemployable. They may lose their PhD. Hence it does happen very rarely. Obviously the LLMs and their handlers have no such qualms.

It is no surprise that quite a few enterprises have strict prohibitions against putting any company data into LLMs.
Also the OWASP LLM Top 10 (https://genai.owasp.org/resource/owasp-genai-llm-top-10-2026/) list this as the 2nd most serious risk.

It is stealing if you do not cite all of them in your publication. The standards for scientific misconduct are VERY clear: You are not allowed to hide your sources.