Reminds me of all these YouTubers making video essays parotting something they have just learned, without actually mastering the subject.
We don’t really do this because there’s no concept of ownership of food to that degree. Maybe 200 years ago, where a farmer may chew you out since he toiled the soil to get you that carrot.
So, for us to not be possessive of knowledge, we’d need to evolve. It’s not likely in our lifetime, but perhaps 500-1000 years down the line the social fabric will evolve to handle this, similar to food possession.
Or I could be wrong, and we just have a bunch of naturally thieving crooks all over the place.
Cooking is not a great comparison, and it betrays your point more than anything. If you cook something particularly impressive or complex, people will almost universally ask about the recipe and where it came from.
Origination is actually a pretty common topic of discussion for many things.
For me a source means I can verify some claims, find another opinion/presentation, are able to view other work based on that source.
It is the difference between having links between web pages or having only independent web pages. I guess we can all agree there is value in having the information "X was based on Y".
The reason people do not credit can also be that they don't add any value. If the original source is more complete, more correct and better presented then they might "loose" their perceived value. Does this happen in all cases? Probably not. But it is my first instinct when I see it (happens a lot to "news" article as well for example, when talking about papers, university announcements, etc, things that could be easily "linked")
Being generous to them, some of them do a good job of picking topics I wouldn't have thought to look up myself. They probably do spend a lot of time reading through diverse subjects looking for the interesting ones.
Why is using AI something to be ‘declared’?
