Am I missing something or is this nonsense? The "Big Model" paper is a survey paper that summarizes the current state of the field, while the "original" paper is specific technique. The former, as a small part of the survey, describes what was presented in the original and uses the same language the authors use. Why wouldn't they? Why would they need to re-phrase the facts and methods the authors described themselves when all they're doing is giving an overview?
They are not claiming to have done something they didn't.
Same argument about copying super generic introductions like "Deep Learning has been successful at...." - does each author really need to come up with their own variation of widely accepted facts to avoid "plagiarism" ?
They are not claiming to have done something they didn't.
Same argument about copying super generic introductions like "Deep Learning has been successful at...." - does each author really need to come up with their own variation of widely accepted facts to avoid "plagiarism" ?