11–20 of 734 posts
Really hoping to see a max exodus from GitHub after this. Microsoft back to their old tactics like we all knew they would.
If you have public repos anywhere people can train on them just as much.
But what if the system memorizes entire functions? What if a human does so? What if you change all the variable names? What if you rearrange the control flow a bit? What if you just change the spacing? What if two humans write the exact same code independently? Is every for loop with i from 0 to n a license violation?
I am not picking any side, but the problem is certainly much more nuanced then either side of the argument wants to paint it.
Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
Really hoping to see a max exodus from GitHub after this. Microsoft back to their old tactics like we all knew they would.
Any suggestions for an alternative? One thing I like about github is that it 'seems' to be a defacto standard for portfolios & public works. It also has excellent integration into AWS and alike
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
GitHub scanning billions of code files to build commercial software is different than you learning at human pace, even if they're both "learning" and in the end they both produce commercial software.
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
I am not a lawyer but I am sure that any legal standard for ML has to be different than "isn't it just doing what humans do, but faster?" GitHub scanning billions of code files to build commercial software is different than you learning at human pace, even if they're both "learning" and in the end they both produce commercial software.
Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.
The main problem that has been the topic is a simpler one - about the produced work. If you exactly reproduce someone's existing code (doesn't matter if you copy by flipping bits one by one or which technology you use), isn't it a copyright violation?
I'm kind of imagining a Rube Goldberg machine that spells out the quake invsqrt function in the sand, now...
A direct confirmation from GitHub itself. This is problematic because Copilot sometimes outputs code that was present in its training set. https://fossbytes.com/github-copilot-generating-functional-a...
Most of the comments are waxing about philosophical possibilities of copilot copying GPL.
Reality is clear in the case, it's copy pasting thousands of characters of GPL code with no modifications. Copyright violation clear as day
The outrage-bait approach in this thread detracts from it. Yes, they trained it on everything. No, it's not clear if that's legal or not (probably is) or if that is much of a problem.
Also, given that the author of this tweet called me a "bootlicker" last year in response to a somewhat lengthy nuanced post about GitHub, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that they're not all that interested in a meaningful conversation on this in the first place but are rather on a quest to "prove" GitHub is evil.