Having written once about artificial intelligence this morning, it only seems right and proper to do so for a second time.
As the FT reports this morning:
A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.
The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.
I did wonder how Reeves managed to write a book on twenty women economists whilst on holiday in north Wales, as Reeves has claimed she did. Now, it seems that we know.
But let me be generous. Although the FT provides many examples of apparently recycled sentences, let us assume Reeves did not consciously borrow them. Let's instead assume she asked ChatGPT to write her book for her. It would not have been hard to do. After all, regurgitating text from the web in easily readable form is exactly what it is set up to do. It's quite the most amazing tool for anyone seeking to write a book whilst on a couple of weeks' break with the family. And it does not reference its sources.
Maybe, then, Reeves is not guilty of plagiarism at all. Instead, she might simply be guilty of unthinking use of AI to create something she is claiming to be her own work when at least some of it was artificially rehashed from the work of others with little analysis or thought being added by her.
Like Labour's economic policy then, copied as it is from the neoliberal handbook without acknowledging the fact.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
While its not quite the same I have just finished reading ‘The Peaks’ by Simon Lilley
https://www.crecy.co.uk/the-peaks-?osCsid=mtaoj2nips9h2150elh781mau7
Now its a different kettle of fish BUT according to the author its taken several years to write.
I cant imagine that if Rachel Reeves managed to write a book while on holiday in North Wales that either its any good, OR she’s telling the truth
I write relatively quickly, even when it comes to books.
I took years thinking them up.
Mr Boxall, you had me going there for a moment – Simon Lilly (no ‘e’) is my brother-in-law, and my momentary astonishment as to how an artist, silversmith and sculptor, had the time or interest in trains to write that ……….now I know!
Reeves is a charlatan in every way.
Mr Boxall
I have that book. The way it dips into the Derby Sulzer website mars an otherwise worthy tome. Also, too much description, not enough analysis or summing up.
Several years? Hmmm……………..
You are being much too generous, Richard, in this case. I find it difficult to conceive of her mastering even ChatGPT, unless we assume she had members of her staff assist her. Or ghostwriters. Plagiarism seems to be the most obvious explanation of the ‘data’.
I am generous
This might be useful for regulars to know about, it’s a plagiarism checker, long-established and widely respected https://www.copyscape.com/ It sounds as if Reeves would have been well advised to run a few pages from her book through it before publishing it and laying claim to its contents.
You rightly state what (Fail to) Reed’s biggest transgression is – the treatment of Neo-liberal bullshit as unquestioned received wisdom.
It’s unforgivable.
People like her and Wes Streeting are writing books – as if they are about to ‘arrive’ on the political scene. Honestly.
Who gives a damn?
Just do your effing job better than the idiots you are replacing. That’s all I ask.
Writing books – there was a time when this was done AFTER a politician’s career.
Now it’s BEFORE their careers – proof if ever it was needed as to what being in politics is all about these days.
Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
I used ChatGPT to find out what it had to say about European Electricity Market Reform.
It produced the usual conventional nonesense (regularly spouted by people that no longer have the capacity to think independently) – thus ChatGPT regurgitates conventional stuff.
Once questioned – its back pedalling starts (quite amusing to see it start to agree with me).
Anyway, I have confidence that Reeves is functionally incapable of asking questions & equally, I am confident that her staff in all likelyhood “helped” wrt the book and the sourcing of what passes for its “content” (drivel?), from ChatGPT or otherwise.
Pilgrim Slight Return said “Just do your effing job better than the idiots you are replacing. That’s all I ask.”
That is a very big ask given that she believes in the same economic nonsense that the current idiots do.
This is media 101 – her editor didn’t bother with attribution in all the right places. But then I’m getting used to this Labour Party having little if any clue about effective communications.
Spot on Den
She culd take a lesson from you
Something else that no one’s mentioned: what monumental arrogance. Didn’t it occur to Reeves that her book was going to be read as part of their day job by clued up journalists who’d be quick to identify and highlight plagiarism? Another thing: when I have reported students over plagiarism, they sometimes claim that they didn’t know the rules etc – and sometimes this is genuine. But often times they fess up, concede that they were running out of time before the assignment deadline, say that one Wiki sentence led to another etc. From what I hear, Reeves doesn’t have the good grace to say to she made a mistake. Pretty much sums up the professional political class.
As a Labour Party member I find this embarrassing and annoying in equal measure.
While I hear what you say I’m convinced that much of this comes down to a deeply flawed media strategy. There are so many examples where I think: “Duh?”
Saying the problems in this case will be fixed in the next issue is grade A bonkers.
I doubt that ChatGPT is involved, much more likely that a “researcher” was employed to help with the book, most likely an intern on minimum wage. Rachel Reeves no doubt discussed the concept for each chapter with the researcher who was then left to prepare a first draft.
That is a very common approach with books by busy public figures.
Passages in the first draft that were coherent and relevant would probably have survived with little change even if there was significant re-organisation and revision from that draft – without Reeves realising that they were unacknowledged quotes. But of course if it is her name on the book, she has to take responsibility.
You may well be right.
I was being generous.
I would like to know who is funding this ‘research assistance’. It doesn’t strike me as a proper use of either party or public funds. Perhaps it was financed by a benefactor who, naturally, expects nothing in return. I think we should be told.