Copilot sells code other people wrote

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 1:29 PM UTC

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #579

progman32 wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see the free software movement as a variant on your ideals but rooted in practicality given the current environment.

I think we share a lot of the same goals but they presuppose openness based on violence, if you don't do what their license says exactly then they're going to use lawyers and courts and the state's monopoly on violence to make you comply. I think at a fundamental level this abandons any vision of a true commons since as copilot discussions reveal the well is now polluted (to mix metaphors) and though in some frames t…

Post by imtringued » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 1:54 PM UTC

dobin wrote: post #142

antihero wrote: post #31

I mean, if it's autocompleting a fairly simple line, and can do that because it's analysed a lot of lines, I don't really see that as "stealing anything". If you are using it to write whole complex functions thatare the same as other people's, I guess that is copying. But if you do the second thing you are not a great dev, and would have probably ended up copy pasting it anyway. I think the first use case is far more…

I neither see it "stealing". The neuronal network was trained with code as input. It's creating code as output. The output has nothing to do with the input once it is trained. Do people dont know how neuronal network work? It's like saying GPT-3 created text is copyright infringement, because some author used the same sentence in a book before.

Post by ShamelessC » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

imtringued wrote: post #793

ShamelessC wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I've just never had to work with GPL code before, but the complaints essentially only seem to be coming from coders who like this style of open source where you still get to make it kind of a pain in the ass to actually use your software. I guess you have the right to do this, but it doesn't mesh at all with why I personally contribute (without any expectation of attribution), which is that (much like stack o…

>from coders who like this style of open source where you still get to make it kind of a pain in the ass to actually use your software. Most "coders" don't publish anything if they don't have to. Using proprietary code is an even worse pain in the ass because you don't have access to it. The point of the GPL is to force people to share their code. >which is that (much like stack overflow), programmers mostly agreed a…

Post by bayindirh » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

ShamelessC wrote: post #805

imtringued wrote: post #793

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>from coders who like this style of open source where you still get to make it kind of a pain in the ass to actually use your software. Most "coders" don't publish anything if they don't have to. Using proprietary code is an even worse pain in the ass because you don't have access to it. The point of the GPL is to force people to share their code. >which is that (much like stack overflow), programmers mostly agreed a…

> extensively documenting and testing their software if three sentences are enough to encode it Was just hyperbole for "from plain English specs/requirements". I'll admit to being uninformed about GPL, but your understanding of large language models is also limited. They actually learn to interpolate between data points meaning they can compose sequences not found in the training data. Further, GitHub added a feature…

Post by frazbin » Fri, Jun 24, 2022, 7:03 PM UTC

Graffur wrote: post #729

frazbin wrote: post #555

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..