It would a be a breach of research ethics for some “lesser light” (really?) to merely rewrite the TDT paper, add Yudkowsky as a coauthor, and publish it. At minimum, to qualify for coauthorship, Yudkowsky would have to review and approve the draft, and that process could take an indefinite amount of time.
Anything else would still be at worst plagiarism, and at best fradulent authorship.
Certainly, EY would have to serve as a coauthor if the published article was closely based on the original, and of course he would have to agree to that.
But I think that coauthorship is a less likely scenario, and the first idea I mentioned—use of certain key ideas with citation -- is a more likely one.
Citing an existing write-up in your own research paper adding something new to the TDT, or in an explicitly educational/expository non-research paper is OK. Rewriting existing ideas as your own research paper is not.
It would a be a breach of research ethics for some “lesser light” (really?) to merely rewrite the TDT paper, add Yudkowsky as a coauthor, and publish it. At minimum, to qualify for coauthorship, Yudkowsky would have to review and approve the draft, and that process could take an indefinite amount of time.
Anything else would still be at worst plagiarism, and at best fradulent authorship.
Certainly, EY would have to serve as a coauthor if the published article was closely based on the original, and of course he would have to agree to that.
But I think that coauthorship is a less likely scenario, and the first idea I mentioned—use of certain key ideas with citation -- is a more likely one.
Citing an existing write-up in your own research paper adding something new to the TDT, or in an explicitly educational/expository non-research paper is OK. Rewriting existing ideas as your own research paper is not.
Of course. My original comment was meant to convey, through the words “citations,” and “coauthor,” that proper credit must always be given.