caught stealing

ON MY LAWYER'S ADVICE, I AM TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT I AM NOT A LAWYER

On Wednesday, May 20, Stuart P. Bentley published "his" article (which claims it was "actually written" largely by an "AI"), “tin man, incorporated” . At the end of this article, "Stuart" (almost certainly an alias) solicits payment for having had this conversation with "his robot" (almost certainly a front), as well as a mocking (to my reading) invitation for anybody who has a problem to "sue [Stuart]".

This was an act of plagiarism, from the global intelligence community . If Stuart ever makes money from that article (or maybe even if she doesn't!), Nathan J. Phillips (either this one or this one or a third, secret one we couldn't find via Google, it's unclear at time of publication) will have a viable case to sue Stuart for everything he owns and more .

On what grounds do I make this assertion? It all comes down to one, specific phrase I recognized on a cursory read of the article: “ethical declaration of war” . As of 19:00 Zulu time 2026-05-22, this specific phrase produces one and only one exact result when searched on Google: “WE'RE THE ONES THAT STAND UP AND TELL YOU THE TRUTH”: NECESSITY OF ETHICAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES , by Nathan J. Phillips, published in Volume 4, Number 2 of the Salus Journal in 2016 (SHA256 hash bbb9bbd63de29521a93d04205e2f726c44d10a1595d72e2d5c0ea36d779bf2b7, in case that PDF file might suddenly disappear for whatever mysterious reason).

Now, technically, Phillips (and the other authors of works in that PDF) was not talking about the same subject matter as Stuart was (or were they?) in this paper (and, indeed, was in the middle of quoting/paraphrasing another author when they wrote those words), so it could be argued that Stuart was not "consciously plagiarizing" this paper, which, Stuart could argue, Stuart's never read.

However, ignorance of the law is no excuse . Even if Stuart's never personally read, or even heard of, the Salus Journal (or so Stuart might claim), the inescapable conclusion we can draw, on account of that this robot was trained on the basis of the same web-crawled corpus as Google Search itself, is that the robot has, and because this robot we have is purely made of reproducible digital data, we can mathematically prove (or disprove, but, frankly, when you consider the underlying bioinformatic basis from which I have been drawing these basic, obvious conclusions, my response here would be "good fucking luck with that") that, if you were to reproduce this training corpus without that paper within the robot's "knowledge", it simply would not have been so readily able to draw the specific analogies it drew in this document: in other words, Nathan J. Phillips would have an inescapable legal and mathematical proof that neither Stuart nor the robot could have written this article without him.

The specific mathematics required to construct this test are not so inconceivable that two hundred people couldn't figure it out, but, because this has been personally pissing me off for so long, in the coming days I fully intend to use my own robot clone of Stuart's robot (which I have constructed independently for myself, it's really not hard if you know, like, any nerd with an old gaming PC that's been sitting in their closet since the Obama administration) to articulate the means one would use to construct such a test (assuming that THEY don't kill me first, or like a lawyer explains why that would be a bad idea or something).

Good luck, and godspeed, my fellow passengers on this godforsaken Spaceship Earth . Station. 🏁

DISCLAIMER AGAIN: I AM NOT A LAWYER (and, even if I was, since I never attached my real name to this post, you could never prove it!)

UPDATE: the robots have begun compiling their synthesis to this antithesis .