Around 2000, science colleagues of mine had the idea to start a book club. Obviously I joined as I needed some of the arts in my life. I had a bit of a background in it and it would be fun to discuss it again.
At the first meeting I got into an argument. I suggested that it would be fun to read the collected diaries and letters of famous canonized authors. Something I always relied on when trying to understand the intent of the author and the time they lived in to produce their masterpieces.
I figured that it would be more intellectually challenging. Sue, the moderator disagreed. I mentioned that it might be fun to learn especially since we might not be able to collect all their digital info one day as opposed to handwritten letters and ideas that are sometimes discovered decades later. Sue told me I was wrong. I dropped it.
Nothing came of the book club, but recently I read that all the great comments by intellectuals like Umberto Eco who was very active on Twitter may be gone. Along with the intelligent debates and comments of other intellectuals. I was right after all.
Much of Einsteins thoughts and aphorisms came from his exchanges with other scientists.
I've always felt that analog and digital must be preserved in parallel for students, scholars and hobbyists.
Then came my own experience. I had found a website hosted by a famous scientific publication. I thought I'd say hello and participate in the discussions. Scientists and researchers from all fields. One in particular, Dr. Paul, encouraged a cross disciplinary arts and science approach.
I won't say too much because it may identify him. He teaches at university, has several publications in his field and is politically active. And presented himself as an ecowarrior. His field is one of the social sciences (it would make more sense if I could say which. Sigh). I knew little about it so I don't know how respected his books are among his peers. As an analogy only: he also claimed to be a rocket scientist.
I believed him. Individuals that start in a social science degree then switch to get a hard science degree and excel are rare but it does happen. If brilliant, the graduate work might take seven years instead of ten.
My mistake. Should have researched him.
I interacted with other commentators, many were retired physicists and scientists but Dr. Paul kept inserting himself in the comments. Often with lengthy self citations using ALL of the AIs. Quirky but annoying. He was overly welcoming (in hindsight) engaged me asked me to explain things. We talked about trends in technology and science fiction, then he applied modern technology to scifi authors from the 1950s which didn't exist then and wasn't even imagined.
Keep in mind this is supposed to be a friendly discussion. I pointed it out and that it wasn't the intend of the author. A rocket scientist would have known the history. Several more times, he didn't know the scientific concepts of his own field. I was always professional. In an analogy: he didn't know what the goldilocks zone was.
Then he wanted to know about my work. Then he told me about all of his achievements. When I mentioned that using all that AI for creating images and text in the excessive way that he wa isn't that environmentally friendly when he's telling people to conserve energy...he replied that academics are usually adverse to and hesitant about new technology. (Isn't that what he was?)
As it turned out he was sponsored. Fine. Lots of companies do it but he pretended that was not the case.
He started to provoke me then came accusations...and then...my comments or rebuttals were edited. A moderator can choose not to post but cannot edit another person and especially not on the science site he was hosted by.
Basically if I said the "goldilockzone is the habitable planet environment humans can thrive in", He made me say "the goldilockszone is a biscuit and you're poop."
The software shouldn't allow him to do that.
My comments showed up on his blog almost verbatim (as his own work) later on and what stunned me is that he thought he'd get away with it. He didn't. I went the legal route because he had scooped me and I keep proof of what I write in the scholarly context. I also discovered that he was in the middle of writing another book that I did not want my work to appear in.
Then I looked him up properly. He had worked on a project applying his field to a hard science one. Basically analogy again: Writing about the viability of spaceships is an opinion piece it does not make him a rocket scientist for which he'd need at least an engineering degree. Yet he publicly claims he is. I do not understand how his university allows it.
Here is a conniving manipulative individual imitating what corporations do and publishing books on whatever is trending using other people's work. If someone properly nailed him on it, he'd blame it on AI.
Unfortunately, this happens all the time. Professors stealing the work of PhD students, publishing as their own. It's quiet and not as blatant. This was someone whose field was largely irrelevant. Nothing wrong with adding pop culture to make it relevant. But stealing because he can't find a way to think up something original?
I personally have always taken other people's intellectual property very seriously. Whether it's science or art both are creative and a lot of it is unpaid labor. People who work 9 to 5 get a paycheck and go home. Whether artist lecturer or researcher prepping a lecture takes a tremendous amount of time.
I was a youngens when I decided to cite my profs' lecture notes in my paper. Theoretically unnecessary because they're not published and I paraphrased them in my own notes. Got me top percentile because it was original and acknowledged everyone, even if I disagreed with them.
I know a number of published authors who had their work stolen and are currently in legal battles. Their livelihoods depend on it. I'm also reading about bestselling authors with the same problem.
Analog made this almost impossible.
This was a human being imitating what ai companies were/are doing because he couldn't produce his own original ideas.
