Omg I cackled

happy to dm you about it :)

I could see why someone not actively doing research in that subfield would very reasonably think that. But as someone who used to publish there, I’ll just say “lol”

what!! scholar counts the same paper more than once! that's insane! I guess i've noticed this and merged them, e.g., if I've changed the title in revisions. but i assumed once you did that they de-duped any citations. because you're telling them it's the same paper...

lol

what irony that I often feel like the imposter, producing only 6-8 papers as a core contributor per year

I just feel particular dumb not to have considered this, seeing as I do a lot of work on manipulating ML models. This just would never have occurred to me as a thing that was worth doing.
This is just...so (likely usually) petty and stupid.

Omg what

✨✨

This is a really great community of researchers, and every accepted paper gets a generously long talk slot to present.

CFP: computersciencelaw.org/2026-2/2026-...

Main track deadline (archival and non-archival): September 30, AoE

at least 100k with all the appendices 🙃

Generative AI can be like a search engine, a website, a library, an author, or like any number of other things copyright has a well-developed framework for dealing with.

Prematurely accepting one of these analogies to the exclusion of the others would mean ignoring numerous relevant similarities

5. Generative AI does not make the ordinary business of copyright law irrelevant:

Courts will still need to make plenty of old-fashioned, retail judgments about individual works.

6. Analogies can be misleading: Generative AI systems blur the boundaries between things that were formerly distinct.

4. Fair use is not a silver bullet:

Generative AI scrambles past assumptions about ML and fair use. Some generations will infringe, and that could impact the fair use analysis at previous stages of the supply chain.