I hate to be the one that says this but I think it‘s true: "So you are an SWE and you take a break from work to go to Hackernews to complain that Github's Copilot, which is an AI-based solution meant to help SWEs, is utter shit and completely unusuable. And then you go back to writing AI-based solutions for some other profession. Which is totally not shit or anything.“ Can anybody put this more elegantly?
You mean like the insanely annoying AIs that replaced Google search? The idiotic one that files Javascript books under "Law" in Amazon or the insulting one who runs Ad Sense and thinks my wife isn't good enough and I am stupid enough to leave her for some mail order bride?
Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
391–400 of 672 posts
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#392This does make me wonder if this is susceptible to the same form of trolling as that MS AI got. Commit a load of grossly offensive material to multiple repos, and wait for Copilot to start parroting it. I think they're going to need some human moderation.
Offensive code is the least of my worries. What about vulnerable/exploitable code?
I certainly wouldn't want to be using this with languages like PHP (or even C for that matter) with all the decades of problematic code examples out there for the AI to learn from.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#393Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I strongly doubt they would use Wikipedia as a training set, has anyone done a search of GitHub code to see if other projects have copied-and-pasted that function from Wikipedia into their more-permissive codebases?
Almost 2000 results for one of the comment lines. I'm not going to read through those or check the licenses, but I think it's safe to say that block of code exists in many GitHub code bases, and it's likely many of those have permissive licenses. Given how famous it is (for a block of code) it's not unexpected. https://github.com/search?q=%22evil+floating+point+bit+level... A question that popped into my head is: if…
From a copyright standpoint, quite possibly. This is called the "Scènes à faire" doctrine. If there are some things that have to be there in a roughly standard form to do a standard job, that applies.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#394I hate to be the one that says this but I think it‘s true: "So you are an SWE and you take a break from work to go to Hackernews to complain that Github's Copilot, which is an AI-based solution meant to help SWEs, is utter shit and completely unusuable. And then you go back to writing AI-based solutions for some other profession. Which is totally not shit or anything.“ Can anybody put this more elegantly?
The most common example of this would probably be complaining about advertising whilst working for a business that depends on advertising to survive. Ultimately it's a kind of Kafkaesque trap that modern living has us all in to a larger or lesser extent.
The GP comment by contrast is about hypocrisy. I personally found it funny that I didn't ever read about (or consider) copyright violations of deep learning until they tried to do it with code :-)
Of course programmers would find the problem with AI as soon as it exploited them.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#395So this makes it official... this post[0] and the comments on the announcement[1] concerned about licensing issues were absolutely correct... and this product has the possibility of getting you sued if you use it. Unfortunately for GitHub, there's no turning back the clocks. Even if they fix this, everyone that uses it has been put on notice that it copies code verbatim and enables copyright infringement. Worse, ther…
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#396Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#397Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doubtful. You can be almost certain it’s being widely used or will be widely used shortly. The conversations around copilot are eerily similar to the conversations around the first autocomplete tools
It's more like a writer using an autocomplete tool to write the first chapter to their novel.
It's content generation at a fragmentary level where each "copied" chunk does not form a substantive whole in the greater body of the new work. Even if you were training it on other authors' works rather than just your own, as long as it wasn't copying distinctive sentences wholesale, I think there's a strong argument for it falling under fair use--if it's even detectable.
On the other hand, if it regurgitated somebody else's paragraph wholesale, I don't think that would be fair use. Somewhere in-between is where it gets fuzzy, and really interesting; it's also where internet commenters seem to prefer flipping over the board and storming out convinced they're right to exploring the issues with a curious and impartial mind. I see way too much unreasoned outrage and hyperbolic misrepresentation of the Copilot tool in these threads, and it's honestly kind of embarrassing.
As far as this analogy goes, it's worth noting that the structure of a computer program doesn't map onto the structure of a piece of fiction (or any work of prose) in a straightforward way. Since so much of code is boilerplate, I would (speculatively, in the copyright law sense) actually give more leeway to Copilot in terms of absolute length of copied chunks than I would for a prose autocompleter. For instance, X program may be licensed under the GPL, but that doesn't mean X's copyright holder(s) can sue somebody else because their program happened to have an identical expression of some RPC boilerplate or whatever. It would be like me suing another author because their work included some of the same words that mine did.
^[1] At least one tool like this (using GPT-3) has been posted on HN. At this point in time I wouldn't use it, but I have to admit that it was sort of cool.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#398From the Copilot FAQ: > The technical preview includes filters to block offensive words And somehow their filters missed f*k? That doesn’t give a lot of confidence in their ability filter more nuanced text. Or maybe it only filters truly terrible offensive words like “master”.
Quoted post unavailable.
By analogy, you are basically using the word African to mean "a person in possession of someone else".
https://www.etymonline.com/word/slave
@edit The fact that people down vote this highlights that the whole issue is just virtue signaling.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#399Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my testing of Copilot, the content filters only work on input , not output. Attempting to generate text from code containing "genocide" just has Copilot refuse to run. But you can still coerce Copilot to return offensive output given certain innocuous prompts.
Ahh, so it's the most pointless interpretation of the phrase "filters to block offensive words", where it is stopping the user from causing offense to the AI rather than the other way around.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#400From the Copilot FAQ: > The technical preview includes filters to block offensive words And somehow their filters missed f*k? That doesn’t give a lot of confidence in their ability filter more nuanced text. Or maybe it only filters truly terrible offensive words like “master”.
Quoted post unavailable.