GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering? • Hacker News Board

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#361

Post by vharuck » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:15 PM UTC

not2b wrote: post #189

akerl_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without weighing in on the overall question of “is this a license violation”, you’ve created a false dichotomy. “GitHub included Microsoft proprietary code in the training set because they view the results as non-derivative” and “GitHub didn’t include Microsoft proprietary code because they view the results as derivative” are clearly not the only options. They could have not included Microsoft internal code because i…

Or: they used the entire open source corpus because they thought it was free for the taking, and when people point out that it is not (that there are licenses) they spin that (claim that only 0.1% of output is directly copied, but that would mean 100 lines in 100k program) and pass any risk onto the user (saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce). So they aren't saying that users are in the clea…

>saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce

But, if some of the code produced is covered by copyright, isn't Microsoft in trouble for distributing software that distributes copyrighted code without a license? How would it be different from giving out bootlegs DVDs and trying to avoid blame by reminding everyone that the recipients don't own the copyright?

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#362

Post by zxcb1 » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

thundergolfer wrote: post #8

Attempts to litigate any license violation are going to get precisely nowhere I bet, but I find the actual license violation argument persuasive. This is an excellent example of how the AI singularity/revolution/whatever is a total distraction and that a much bigger and more serious issue is how AI is becoming so effective at turning the output of cheap/free human mental labour into capital. If AI keeps getting bette…

  1. Programmers will become teachers of the co-pilot through IDE / API feedback
  2. Expect CI like services for automated refactoring

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#363

Post by greyman » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:28 PM UTC

> github copilot was trained on open source code and the sum total of everything it knows was drawn from that code. there is no possible interpretation of "derivative" that does not include this

I don't understand the second sentence, i.e. where's the proof?

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#364

Post by mattdesl » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:35 PM UTC

By submitting any textual content (GPL or otherwise) on the web, you are placing it in an environment where it will be consumed and digested (by human brains and machine learning algorithms alike). There is already legal precedent set for this which allows its use in training machine learning algorithms, specifically with heavily copyrighted material from books[1].

This does not mean that any GitHub Co-Pilot produced code is suddenly free of license or patent concerns. If the code produces something that matches too closely GPL or otherwise licensed code on a particularly notable algorithm (such as video encoder), you may still be in a difficult legal situation.

You are in essence using "not-your-own-code" by relying on CoPilot, which introduces a risk that the code may not be patent/license free, and you should be aware of the risk if you are using this tool to develop commercial software.

The main issue here is that many average developers may continue to stamp their libraries as MIT/BSD, even though the CoPilot-produced code may not adhere to that license. If the end result is that much of the OSS ecosystem becomes muddied and tainted, this could slowly erode trust in open licenses on GitHub (i.e. the implications would be that open source libraries could become less widely used in commercial applications).

[1] - https://towardsdatascience.com/the-most-important-supreme-co...

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#365

Post by skeeter2020 » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:36 PM UTC

belter wrote: post #101

One interesting aspect, that I thing will make it difficult for GitHub to argue and justify its not a a license violation would be the answer to the following question: Was Copilot trained using Microsoft internal source code or will it be in the future ? As GitHub is a Microsoft company and OpenAI although a non-profit just got a massive one billion investment from Microsoft (presumably not for free), will it start…

>> Was Copilot trained using Microsoft internal source code...

They explicitly state "public" code so the answer is most certainly "no".

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#366

Post by eevilspock » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:41 PM UTC

thundergolfer wrote: post #8

Attempts to litigate any license violation are going to get precisely nowhere I bet, but I find the actual license violation argument persuasive. This is an excellent example of how the AI singularity/revolution/whatever is a total distraction and that a much bigger and more serious issue is how AI is becoming so effective at turning the output of cheap/free human mental labour into capital. If AI keeps getting bette…

Is this the direct result of Microsoft owning GitHub or would they have been able to do it anyway?

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#367

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

akerl_ wrote: post #133

belter wrote: post #101

One interesting aspect, that I thing will make it difficult for GitHub to argue and justify its not a a license violation would be the answer to the following question: Was Copilot trained using Microsoft internal source code or will it be in the future ? As GitHub is a Microsoft company and OpenAI although a non-profit just got a massive one billion investment from Microsoft (presumably not for free), will it start…

Without weighing in on the overall question of “is this a license violation”, you’ve created a false dichotomy. “GitHub included Microsoft proprietary code in the training set because they view the results as non-derivative” and “GitHub didn’t include Microsoft proprietary code because they view the results as derivative” are clearly not the only options. They could have not included Microsoft internal code because i…

> They could have not included Microsoft internal code because it was way easier to just use the entire open source corpus, for example.

They don't claim they used an “open source corpus” but “public code” because such use is “fair use” not subject to the exclusive rights under copyright.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#368

Post by DemocracyFTW » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:45 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #40

freshhawk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose someone should make a OS-generating AI, conceptually it can just have windows, osx and some linux distros in it and output one based on a question about favorite color or something. You'd just have to wrap it in a nice complex model representation so it's a black box you fed example OS's with some meta-data into and it happens to output this very useful data. After all, once you use something as input to a…

That would be interesting: * Someone leaks Windows 10/11 source code * Copilot picks it up in its training data * Someone uses copilot to generate a Windows clone and starts selling it I wonder how Microsoft would react to that. I wonder if they've manually blacklisted leaked source code from Windows (or other Microsoft products) so that it doesn't show up in Copilot's training data. If they have, that means Microsof…

> source code

why do you think it has to be source code? it could be the compiled code after all.

If what we're talking / fantasizing about here works in the way of `let x = 42` it should equally well work with `loda 42` &cpp, so source code be damned. It was ever only to be an intermediate step, inserted between the idea and the working bits, to enable humans to helpfully interfere. Dispensable.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#369

Post by gus_massa » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

joepie91_ wrote: post #248

gus_massa wrote: post #137

I think copyright is a problem for GPL-like licenses. They should have restricted the training data to MIT/BSD-like. Anyway, there is another problem that is patents and is huger, much huger. I think the Apache license has a provision about patents, but most of other licenses may have code that has patents and if the AI generate something similar it may be included in the patent.

MIT/BSD-like would still require attribution, which they are also not doing.

I think you are correct, but (I guess that) most people that use MIT/BSD use them as a polite version of the WTFPL.

People that use A/L/GPL usually like the virality and will complain more.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#370

Post by outside1234 » Wed, Jun 30, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

belter wrote: post #101

One interesting aspect, that I thing will make it difficult for GitHub to argue and justify its not a a license violation would be the answer to the following question: Was Copilot trained using Microsoft internal source code or will it be in the future ? As GitHub is a Microsoft company and OpenAI although a non-profit just got a massive one billion investment from Microsoft (presumably not for free), will it start…

It probably wasn't because Github is treated as a separate company by Microsoft.

Literally people need to quit Microsoft and join Github to take a role at Github.