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

GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 806 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#201

Post by foobarbecue »

tpxl wrote: post #16
acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

> one set of rules for the poor, another set of rules for the masses

Presumably by "the masses" you meant "the large corporations"?

Usually, "the masses" means "the common people" ... i.e. not much different from "the poor."

If you meant corporations, I'm 100% behind this comment.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#202

Post by makeitdouble »

rtkwe wrote: post #94
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

I think the is exacty the gap the gp is mentionning: to a trained artist it is clear as water that the original image has been lifted wholesale, even if for instance the colors are adjusted here and there.

You put it as a remix, but remixes are credited and expressed as such.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#203

Post by LelouBil »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #115
jonnycomputer wrote: post #5

Microsoft should just train it on all their proprietary code instead. See how sanguine they are about it then.

As a thought experiment: what do we all suppose would be the impact to Microsoft if they deliberately made public the proprietary source code for all of their publicly available commercial products and efforts (including licensed software, services; excluding private contracts, research), but the rest of their intellectual property and trade secrets remained private? Since I’m posing the question, here’s my guess: -…

Some day, I think the Windows source will be public, at least for reference purposes.

They already have one open source part I know of, the new conhost[0].

[0] https://github.com/microsoft/terminal

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#204

Post by foobarbecue »

tpxl wrote: post #16
acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I'm not even a good cellist and YouTube has put copyright claims on the crappy practice videos I have of me playing Saint-Saëns.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#205

Post by teddyh »

qu4z-2 wrote: post #56
jijji wrote: post #26

if you're posting your code publicly on the web, its hard to get upset that people are seeing/using it

Can I introduce you to a concept called copyright? Is it fine if an author publishes a short story publicly on the web for someone else to submit it to a contest as their own work?

Please don’t use plagiarism as an argument for keeping copyright. They are not related. Plagiarism is already illegal or disallowed for obvious reasons, but copyright is a different matter.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#206

Post by tremon »

bayindirh wrote: post #186
psychphysic wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. Those are effectively cases of cryptomnesia[0]. Part and parcel of learning. If you don't want broad access your work, don't upload it to a public repository. It's very simple. Good on you for recognising that you don't agree with what GitHub looks at data in public repos, but it's not their problem. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia

> Those are effectively cases of cryptomnesia. Disagree, outputting training data as-is is not cryptomnesia. This is not Copilot's first case. It also reproduced ID software's fast inverse square root function as-is, including its comments, but without its license. > If you don't want broad access your work, don't upload it to a public repository. It's very simple. This is actually both funny and absurd. This is why…

Disagree, outputting training data as-is is not cryptomnesia

Outputting training data as-is without attribution is just plain plagiarism. You don't get to put verbatim text from textbooks in your academic papers either.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#207

Post by foobarbecue »

lo_zamoyski wrote: post #125
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

The poor are the masses, or at least part of the masses.

Yeah, presumably this was an editing error and he meant "the corporations."

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#208

Post by IncRnd »

naikrovek wrote: post #110
ianbutler wrote: post #85

I just tested it myself on a random c file I created in the middle of a rust project I'm working on, it reproduced his full code verbatim from just the function header so clearly it does regurgitate proprietary code unlike some people have said, I do not have his source so co-pilot isn't just using existing context. I've been finding co-pilot really useful but I'll be pausing it for now, and I'm glad I have only been…

what proprietary code? the guy on Twitter is seeing his own GPL code bring reproduced. nothing proprietary there. do you have the "don't reproduce code verbatim" preference set?

The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#209

Post by mr_toad »

rtkwe wrote: post #94
tpxl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Joe Rando plays a song from 1640 on a violin he gets a copyright claim on Youtube. When Jane Rando uses devtools to check a website source code she gets sued. When Microsoft steals all code on their platform and sells it, they get lauded. When "Open" AI steals thousands of copyrighted images and sells them, they get lauded. I am skeptical of imaginary property myself, but fuck this one set of rules for the poor,…

I think copilot is a clearer copyright violation than any of the stable diffusion projects though because code has a much narrower band of expression than images. It's really easy to look at the output of CoPilot and match it back to the original source and say these are the same. With stable diffusion it's much closer to someone remixing and aping the images than it is reproducing originals. I haven't been following…

> I haven't been following super closely but I don't know of any claims or examples where input images were recreated to a significant degree by stable diffusion.

I think that the argument being made by some artists is that the training process itself violates copyright just by using the training data.

That’s quite different from arguing that the output violates copyright, which is what the tweet in this case was about.

Re: GitHub Copilot, with “public code” blocked, emits my copyrighted code

#210

Post by 9wzYQbTYsAIc »

acoustics wrote: post #6

I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…

> [people] are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI

That sounds like the pro-innovation bias: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-innovation_bias

Post reply on HN