Tag Archives: plagiarism

Alternative Indiscretion

That is the setting and it is given to us by the BBC. The first setting (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8jxevd8mdyo) gives us ‘Microsoft error sees confidential emails exposed to AI tool Copilot’ which is not entirely true as I personally see it. And as the Microsoft spin machine comes to a live setting, we are given “Microsoft has acknowledged an error causing its AI work assistant to access and summarise some users’ confidential emails by mistake.” As I see it, whatever ‘AI’ machine there is, a programmer told it to get whatever it could and there the setting changes. With the added “a recent issue caused the tool to surface information to some enterprise users from messages stored in their drafts and sent email folders – including those marked as confidential.” As I personally see it, the system was told to grab anything it could and then label as needed, that is what a machine learning programmer would do and that makes sense. So there is no ‘error’ the error was that this wasn’t clearly set BEFORE the capture of all data began and these AI wannabe’s are so neatly set to capture all data that it is nothing less than a miracle it had not surfaced sooner. So when we laughingly see Forbes giving us a week ago ‘Microsoft AI chief gives it 18 months—for all white-collar work to be automated by AI’, so how much of that relies on confidential settings or plagiarism? Because as I see it, the entire REAL AI is at least two decades away (optionally 15 years, depending on a few factors) and as I see it, IBM will get to that setting long before Microsoft will (I admittedly do not now all the settings of Microsoft, but there is no way they got ahead of IBM in several fields). So, this is not me being anti-Microsoft, just a realist seeing the traps and falls as they are ‘surfacing’ all whilst there are two settings that aren’t even considered. Namely Validation and Verification. The entire confidential email setting is a clear lack of verification as well was validation. Was the access valid? Nope, me thinks not. A such Microsoft is merely showing how far they are lagging and lagging more with every setting we see.

And when we see that, is the setting we see (at https://arab.news/zzapc) where we are given ‘OpenAI’s Altman says world ‘urgently’ needs AI regulation’, and I don’t disagree on this, but is this given (by him of all people) because Google is getting to much of a lead? It is not without some discourse from Google themselves (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0q3g0ln274o) the BBC also gives us ‘Urgent research needed to tackle AI threats, says Google AI boss’, consider that a loud ‘Yes’ from my desk, but in all this, the two settings that need to be addressed is verification and validation. These two will weed out a massive amount of threats (not all mind you) and that comes in a setting that most are ignoring, because as I told you all around 30 hours ago (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2026/02/19/the-setting-of-the-sun/) in ‘The setting of the sun’ which took the BBC reporter a mere 20 minutes to run a circle around what some call AI. I added there too that Validation and Verification was required, because the lack there could make trolls and hackers set a new economic policy that would not be countered in time making them millions in the process. Two people set that in motion and one of them (that would be me) told you all so around December 1st 2025 in ‘It’s starting to happen.’ (At https://lawlordtobe.com/2025/12/01/its-starting-to-happen/) as such I was months ahead of the rest. Actually, I was ahead by close to a decade as this were two settings that come with the rules of non-repudiation which I got taught at uni in 2012. As such the people running to get the revenue are willing to sell you down the river. How does that go over with your board of directors? And I saw parts of this as I promised that 2026 was likely the year of the AI class cases and now as we see Microsoft adding to this debacle, more cases are likely to come. Because the greed in people sees the nesting error of Microsoft as a Ka-Ching moment. 

So as we take heed with “Sir Demis said it was important to build “robust guardrails” against the most serious threats from the rise of autonomous systems.” I can agree with this, but that article doesn’t mention either validation of verification even once, as such there is a lot more to be done in several ways. If only to stop people to rely on Reddit as a ‘valid’ source of all data. Because that is a setting most will not survive and when the AI wannabe’s go to court and they will be required to ‘spout’ their sources, any of them making a mention of ‘Reddit’ is on the short track of the losing party n that court case. What a lovely tangled web we weave, don’t we? So whilst we see (there) the statement “Many tech leaders and politicians at the Summit have called for more global governance of AI, ahead of an expected joint statement as the event draws to a close. But the US has rejected this stance, with White House technology adviser Michael Kratsios saying: “AI adoption cannot lead to a brighter future if it is subject to bureaucracies and centralised control.”

Consider that court cases are pushed through a lack of bureaucracy? I am not stating it is good or bad, but in any court case, you merely need to look at the contents of ‘The Law of Intellectual Property Copyright, Design & Confidential Information’ and that is before they rely on the Copyright Act, because there is every chance that Reddit never gave permission to all these data vendors downloading whatever was there (but that is pure speculation by me). And in the second setting we are given “AI adoption cannot lead to a brighter future”, the bland answer from me would be. “That is because it doesn’t exist yet” and these people are banking on no one countering their setting and that is why so many of these court cases will be settled out of court. Because the truth of this is that the power of AI is depending on certain pieces being in place and they are not. Doubt me? That is fine, and I applaud that level of skepticism and you merely need to read the paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” which was written by Alan Turing in 1950 to see how easy the stage is misrepresented at present. 

So is there good news? 
Well if you want to get your dollars in court and you are an aggrieved party, your chances are good and the largest players are set to settle against the public scrutiny that every case beings to the table. And in this day of media, it is becoming increasingly easy as I see it. There is no real number, but it is set to be in the billions where one case was settled on $1.5B, as such there is plenty of work for what some call the ambulance chasers and they will soon get a new highway, the AI Chasers and leave it to the lawyers to find their financial groove and as I see it, people like Michael Kratsios are bound to add to that setting in ways we cannot yet see (we can see some of it, but the real damage will be shown in a year of two) so as some are flexing their muscles, others are preparing their war fund to get what I would see as an easy payday. 

A setting that is almost certain to happen, because there are too many markers showing up the way I expected them to show. Not nice, but it is what it is.

Have a great day as you are all moving towards this weekend (I’m already there)

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics, Science

Accused, Bluff, Carney

It is a regular A,B,C. And at first I let it slide but then I got a response from the most ignorant stupid Canadian on the planet, I kid you not. As such I had to pick this up. 

Mark Carney (formerly known as Markie Mark of the British Bank) is now at present the PM of Canada and there is an election coming up. So now we get the accusation (as far as I can see) from the National Post. A magazine who is on the side off whomever opposes Mark Carney (conservatively minded), and will you believe it, they are pushing for plagiarism, weirdly enough, the article is well written making the setting a larger problem and all the other sources basically repeat what the National Post gave its readers. 

Two stood out
First there is the Independent (at https://www.independent.co.uk/politics/mark-carney-canada-prime-minister-plagiarism-oxford-b2723812.html) here we also see ‘Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney accused of plagiarism in his Oxford thesis’, now the issues I had was that the accusation came right when there is an election, the larger setting is that this happened 30 years ago and it was at Oxford and academics take plagiarism as the big booboo. As such there is a larger look at Plagiarism (I remember my days in Uni and there is a frightening fear for that word). 

The independent gives us “The accusations were reportedly made by three academics chosen to assess the liberal leader’s 1995 theses for his doctorate by the conservative newspaper the National Post.” More important we were given ““As an academic of nearly 40 years, I see no evidence of plagiarism in the thesis you cited, nor any unusual academic practices,” she emphasized.” This is given to us by Margaret Meyer, an American economist and an economics fellow at Nuffield College in Oxford University. In addition she gives us “Mark’s thesis was evaluated and approved by a faculty committee that saw his work for what it is: an impressive and thoroughly researched analysis that set him apart from his peers” added to that we get “A spokesperson for the Liberal campaign, Isabella Orozco-Madison, called the allegations an “irresponsible mischaracterization” of Carney’s work.” So far, so good. I believe that a thesis would not be unattended for 30 years, not from a place like Oxford. You see, Oxford is surrounded by close to a thousand reporters in any given day, and they have Cambridge looking over their shoulders, just like Oxford is watching Cambridge like a hawk. As I see it, there are issues to some degree and as such we get to the second piece. It comes from 

Where we are given “In my January 2024 blog post, “Plagiarism Witch Hunts Cause Harm,” about the case of former Harvard University President, Dr. Claudine Gay, I pointed out that we appear to be in an era where plagiarism is increasingly weaponized against public figures. Following the resignation of Dr. Gay amid plagiarism allegations, we have seen a troubling pattern of using academic integrity as a political weapon rather than an educational concern.” And this is followed by “There is no singular or universally accepted definition of plagiarism. Oxford University defines it as “presenting work or ideas from another source as your own.” However, interpretations of definitions, as well as the definitions themselves can vary from one university to the next, as I have pointed out elsewhere. In Carney’s case, his doctoral supervisor defended his work, stating she saw “no evidence of plagiarism in the thesis,” whereas academics consulted by the National Post disagreed. One professor, Dr. Geoffrey Sigalet, a political science professor at the University of British Columbia Okanagan (UBCO) stated that the unattributed quotes are “what we call plagiarism.” According to the National Post article, Dr. Sigalet is a member of the UBCO’s institutional president’s advisory committee on student discipline, “which handles cases of plagiarism for the university”. This disagreement underscores the subjectivity in evaluating academic integrity.” With the added question that gives weight to a few issues I have being “Upon reading the National Post article, one question that I had was: was Mr. Carney informed of the allegations before they were investigated?” My issues was that the media could be in hotter waters than they think. As I see it they propagated this setting by basically whaling whatever the National Post handed down to their audience. The added setting given to us is the one why I basically rejected the article, especially as Markie Mark is an Oxford graduate, on a personal note it isn’t the University of Technology Sydney, but they are a larger lead in university educations. And as such when we are given “Investigating work completed nearly 30 years ago raises questions about motives and impact. As I have pointed out previously when I commented on the Dr. Claudine Gay case, “a retroactive investigation into a person’s academic work while they were a student is often an exercise in discrediting someone in their current professional role.”” I basically rejected the stance as I presumed the clarity of the “using academic integrity as a political weapon”, yet I personally would want to call it “abusing academic integrity and misaligning it as a political weapon” A setting that one raised probably in favor of their Conservative Leader (I believe that in Canada it currently is Pierre Polivicious) and that setting we get to the last part given to us by Sarah Elaine Eaton, PhD, a Professor and Research Chair in the Werklund School of Education. She gives us the cherrie of the pie. It is given through “So, Did Mark Carney Plagiarize or Not? The answer is, I don’t know. When I conduct an analysis of text for possible plagiarism, it is a meticulously in-depth and detailed process. I start with the allegedly plagiarized text and I go through it line-by-line comparing it to the original sources from which text has been allegedly lifted without attribution. That can show whether or not there is a potential ‘text match’. There are examples of possible text matches in the National Post article, but they are selective. I cannot make a call on whether or not there was plagiarism based on excerpts. I would want to see the full texts (original and allegedly plagiarized), not bits and pieces.

If we can identify a possible text match, then we need to look for additional evidence. Was this sloppy scholarship or poor academic literacy? For example, were the original sources perhaps listed in the bibliography, but the direct quotations were not attributed in the main body of the text? In the context of the entire thesis, would it appear as though the student was deliberately trying to deceive their supervisor or academic advisory committee. (Intent to deceive is difficult, if not impossible to prove in many cases.)” This is the cherrie as it allows to ask the media to ask these questions, especially the media that merely copied what the National Post gave us. And these publications gave us lacking settings in addition. Who talked to the supervisor of Mark Carney? Who took the questions to Nuffield College, Oxford? Seems like two essential sources for these articles. I see several sources lacking. 

As such I have said my piece and I do not believe that there is a case for plagiarism against Mark Carney. Not because I got the paper (I basically lack economic knowledge), but for the simple setting that a place like Oxford will slap down any student who pushes Plagiarism, intentional or not. Such plagiarism cases hurt Oxford as much as the student. Then there is the timeline. Do you think that the Bank Of England takes on a student who attempts plagiarism? The timeline includes Goldman Sachs (that place is loaded with economy guys) and his work would have been scrutinized by dozens of people and 30 year later, just at the upcoming election someone makes a breakthrough? It smells like yesterdays diapers as Baby Herman told Roger Rabbit. 

Have a great day and enjoy the smell of coffee today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics