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

Copilot sells code other people wrote

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

721–730 of 838 posts

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#721

Post by nojs »

brianmcc wrote: post #635
borishn wrote: post #602

Copilot is fair use, get over it! Copilot is not writing your code any more that Google search is writing your code. You are writing your code, and Copilot is just making suggestions. US constitution secures limited copyright to "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". Copilot is just that, get over it!

Wait till it suggests something Disney can argue they own rights to...

You mean like DALL-E? This debate is going to get interesting when “in the style of” illustrations and videos go mainstream.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#723

Post by [deleted] »

monocasa wrote: post #630
Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

The issue is that whether the free software people want it or not, the copyright system over code exists, and historically has been used as a cudgel against smaller players. If we got rid of copyright over code entirely I'd totally be down for this. And IIRC RMS has said the same thing; that he'd be in favor of the removal of copyright over code as a concept even if it meant neutering the protections of the GPL. Unti…

[deleted]

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#724

Post by notacoward »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

I suggest you read up on the history of free software and open source. It exists as a reaction to intellectual enclosure, to prevent that ill and create greater freedom of ideas. Yes, it uses the tools of copyright to fight greater ills of copyright, because those are the tools available, and actions like these are necessary to keep the enclosure from happening all over again. Anyone who has actually studied the matter for even five minutes can see how silly the "free software is anti-freedom" FUD is.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#725

Post by zzo38computer »

jimnotgym wrote: post #295
meheleventyone wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this fair use? I don't think that's been established yet. And if it is why didn't MS and OpenAI train it on their private code repositories? Fair use for thee not for me isn't very in keeping with the spirit of that claim.

I sometimes read people's open source code on github and use the ideas from that to develop my own ideas. In fact sometimes I copy and paste short passages and then rework them. I also employ a team of people who may do the same. Is that fair use, yes of course it is. Is co-pilot automating that fair use, I would say so.

> I sometimes read people's open source code on github and use the ideas from that to develop my own ideas.

Yes, I too, and probably many people will do.

> In fact sometimes I copy and paste short passages and then rework them.

This I usually don't unless I check the license first. (Everybody ought to be allowed, but sometimes the license might not be.)

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#726

Post by dougmwne »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #703
futureshock wrote: post #674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this thread: many engineers nervously sweating. The moats are drying up and the wizards are about to be thrown out of the castle. This tech is the first product in a long line of products that will massively lower the barrier to entry. It has been a good run, but it was never going to last forever. We are not part of the capitalist class and were never going to be.

Copilot replaces code monkeys, not engineers. Ultimately it's just faster stack overflow, proper software engineers and system architects are going to be just as in demand as they are right now for the foreseeable future. At the point at which that stops being the case, we'll have much bigger societal and existential problems (because it implies the singularity is nigh) (You're correct on not being part of the capita…

There are a lot of code monkeys out there and I might be one of them. That island of job security seems like it will be shrinking.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#727

Post by zzo38computer »

olalonde wrote: post #418
falcolas wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example posted here on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287

Thanks. Personally, I feel like such small and widely used mathematical algorithms should not be copyrightable (or using them should fall under fair use). It even has its own Wikipedia page[0], where the source code is also reproduced without copyright notice. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

I also implemented this algorithm in MMIX:

   % Constants
  FISRCON GREG #5FE6EB50C7B537A9
  THREHAF GREG #3FF8000000000000
   % Save half of the original number
   OR $2,$0,0
   INCH $2,#FFF0
   % Bit level hacking
   SRU $1,$0,1
   SUBU $0,FISRCON,$1
   % First iteration
   FMUL $1,$2,$0
   FMUL $1,$1,$0
   FSUB $1,THREHAF,$1
   FMUL $0,$0,$1
   % Second iteration
   FMUL $1,$2,$0
   FMUL $1,$1,$0
   FSUB $1,THREHAF,$1
   FMUL $0,$0,$1
(Note this assumes that the input number is not too small; if it is, then it will not be possible to compute half by this algorithm. Also, like with the original code, the second iteration may be omitted if desired.)

(This comment and the MMIX code it contains, and all other comments that I wrote on here, are I agree release it to public domain.)

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#728

Post by tzs »

rurban wrote: post #433
zarzavat wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you need to check the laws in your country. But that is nothing new to copilot. Copyright laws vary significantly from country to country.

Not really. They are mostly the same across countries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_copyright_treati... There are just minor deviances, not relevant to this case, such as how long Disney bullied the countries to protect a work. Software is usually considered a work. The AI needs to know if has permissions to copy and use the code, and then offer derived work on the proper terms and conditions. copilot…

What are examples of Disney getting countries to extend copyright terms?

In the US there have only been two extensions of copyright terms since Disney came into existence.

The first was in 1976, as part of a major overhaul of US copyright law to update the previous law (from 1909) to take into account the large changes in technology since then, and to make US law work more like the rest of the world to pave the way for the US later joining the Berne Convention. The changes for Berne compatibility included longer terms.

I assume Disney did support this, but only because as far as I can tell it had pretty widespread support. It had enough support that it would have passed even if Disney had adamantly opposed it.

The second was in 1998, and that was specifically a term expansion (as opposed to a term expansion like that of 1976 that was a side effect of harmonizing US law with the rest of the world). Europe had expanded terms a few years earlier, so the 1998 change in the US might have been motivated at least in part by harmonization, but I don't think the differences in terms between the US and the EU would have been enough to get it passed without some major interests pushing for it, so it is probably fair to give Disney a good part of the credit or blame for this one.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#729

Post by Graffur »

frazbin wrote: post #555
xtracto wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really, REALLY like the idea of Copilot. I think it is a glance at what the future of AI can bring to improve programming. I understand where all the litigation and "uneasiness" is coming from, both from commercial and open-source projects. I've not installed or used it for the same reason (don't want to use AGPL or GPLd code by accident, and don't want my closed source code to be used accidentally as well), but th…

Huh... These comments have given me an idea: MS needs to be forced to train a model to compensate (pay) code authors and codebases based on snippet suggestions given by their tool: the Spotify model replacing Napster!

The comment you replied to gave you that idea nearly word for word..

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#730

Post by nonbirithm »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

I think because this kind of ML is so new, we have no choice but to frame arguments for/against in terms of the structures that have been in place for decades past (copyright, open source licenses). We don't yet have the legal language to express dissent against ML in clear yes or no terms.

I think if there were an option to add a machine learning clause and ask individual creators if they wanted it applied in that context, we would see a considerable amount of uptake. It's just that we couldn't forsee this progress happening so soon, and the issue is still not visible enough. I think it's only a matter of time before the culture catches up and new creative works in the coming years are excluded from training sets by their authors with clear and direct language.

By that point there would be no way to argue "but they shouldn't care, they licensed it like this, so I'm assuming it's fine for ML use."

If copyright is not enough to stop another entity from using a person's data for training, then some other protection should be invented that does.

Post reply on HN