Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 734 posts

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#181

Post by blendergeek »

schneidmaster wrote: post #162
_Understated_ wrote: post #92

Ok, my curiosity has been fired here... I have conjured up two scenarios here: Let's say I use copilot to generate a bunch of code for an app, something substantial, and it regurgitates a load of bits and pieces from many sources it got from GitHub, I'd assume there won't be any attribution in it... it will be as if Copilot made the code itself (I know it sort of does but lets not split hairs!). I'm guessing the prev…

There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright. This article[0] does a pretty good job of summarizing the rationale that the courts have provided. My (non-lawyer) take is that GitHub is pushing this just half a step farther -- if computers can consume copyrighted material, and…

> There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright.

I have read variations of "computers don't commit copyright" more times than I can count in the past few days.

How is Copilot different from a compiler? (Please give me the legal answer, not the technical answer. I now the difference between Copilot and a compiler, technically.)

Isn't a compiler a computer program? How is its output covered by copyright?

Am I fundamentally misunderstanding something here?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#183

Post by Hamuko »

ssivark wrote: post #64

Calling it “public” code feels like doublespeak. It’s most definitely NOT public domain code — it only happens to be hosted on GitHub and browsable ( but not copyable ) by people. “Source available for viewing” is very different from “public property” as the phrase is commonly understood: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

>it only happens to be hosted on GitHub and browsable (but not copyable) by people.

So would you say that it's publicly visible?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#184

Post by spywaregorilla »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #161
spywaregorilla wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both of these examples include you creating something and then using it. I don't know how copilot works, but using the second example, if you wrote a script to download and seed trackers, and someone else used it, I don't think you would be held under any liability, especially if you don't profit off of it. Not a lawyer or even particularly well informed edit: I am reminded of the monkey selfie, in which it was ruled…

Did copilot spring from the aether? Or was it built and trained on licensed code by github? Someone did something.

It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. There are three questions at play though:

1) Can you be liable for violating copyright if you have never seen the work?

2) Can a non-human be held accountable for violating copyright?

3) Can github be held liable for an end user using their tool to violate copyright?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity

wikipedia states: Generally, copying cannot be proven without some evidence of access; however, in the seminal case on striking similarity, Arnstein v. Porter, the Second Circuit stated that even absent a finding of access, copying can be established when the similarities between two works are "so striking as to preclude the possibility that the plaintiff and defendant independently arrived at the same result."

This is a different situation in which exact replication can be reasonably occurred without access to the original.

Secondly, can you actually claim Github has violated copyright if it doesn't have any claims to the work in question?

I think it's totally plausible that they win this in the long run.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#185

Post by keonix »

If the training set contains verbatim (A)GPL code does this mean that Copilot also should be distributed by Microsoft under GPL? Because without it Copilot (as it is distributed by Microsoft) couldn't be built, wouldn't it make it a derivative work of GPL'd code (and obviously every other license)?

I see a lot of people comparing human learning to machine learning in the comments, but there is a huge difference - we don't distribute copies of humans

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#186

Post by klntsky »

_Understated_ wrote: post #125
lukeplato wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copilot is a commercial paid service that generates money for Microsoft

Yeah, that bit I realise but the point I was getting at is this: if I take someone else's code, use chunks of it in my app, say that it's mine and make money from it is that not illegal? Or, at least in violation of the license? Superficially at least, Copilot (from my understanding) is "copying" code, letting me use it in my app, and making money from it. I'm just trying to wrap my head around it. Let's be clear, I…

Does copilot seem strange, or maybe the concept of intellectual property does?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#187

Post by mysterydip »

schneidmaster wrote: post #162
_Understated_ wrote: post #92

Ok, my curiosity has been fired here... I have conjured up two scenarios here: Let's say I use copilot to generate a bunch of code for an app, something substantial, and it regurgitates a load of bits and pieces from many sources it got from GitHub, I'd assume there won't be any attribution in it... it will be as if Copilot made the code itself (I know it sort of does but lets not split hairs!). I'm guessing the prev…

There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright. This article[0] does a pretty good job of summarizing the rationale that the courts have provided. My (non-lawyer) take is that GitHub is pushing this just half a step farther -- if computers can consume copyrighted material, and…

Makes me wonder what would happen if a similar thing was done with books. If I train an AI on all the texts of Tom Clancy, or Stephen King, or every Star Wars novel, and the books it generates every so often produce paragraphs verbatim from one of those sources, would copyright owners be up in arms? What would the distinction be between the code case and the text case?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#188

Post by rambambram »

I'm a programmer and also studied law for some time. These stories make me - once more - realize the old adage: "Possession is nine tenths of the law." Don't host that code in the cloud (or a better term, someone else's dirty bucket). What happened to developers hosting stuff on their own website!?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#189

Post by iimblack »

tazjin wrote: post #91
neom wrote: post #87

Curious what the consensus is on how GH should have approached this to avoid such blowback. Best case scenario, they explained in advance on the GH blog they're going to be doing some work on ML and coding, and they'd like people to opt into their profile being read via a flag setting/or put a file in the repo that gives permission like robots.txt? Second best case scenario, same as first but opt out vs opt in, and l…

> Second best case scenario Not really, consider for example repositories mirrored to Github. It seems unclear who has the rights to grant this permission anyways (with free software licenses). Probably the copyright holder? Who that is might also be complicated.

In that hypothetical I wouldn’t think GitHub is responsible for determining if a repository is mirrored and what the implications of that are. They just need to look at what license is on the repo in GitHub.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#190

Post by ghoward »

keonix wrote: post #185

If the training set contains verbatim (A)GPL code does this mean that Copilot also should be distributed by Microsoft under GPL? Because without it Copilot (as it is distributed by Microsoft) couldn't be built, wouldn't it make it a derivative work of GPL'd code (and obviously every other license)? I see a lot of people comparing human learning to machine learning in the comments, but there is a huge difference - we…

This is a great argument.
Post reply on HN