61–70 of 1001 posts
Honestly, Github Copilot seems fine. It's just a tool that you're responsible for using responsibly. If I Google something, and copy and paste that, then Google is not responsible for my infringing. It's just "intelligent autocomplete".
This is a bit off-topic, but I wonder if there are people/teams right now creating git repos, doing the source code equivalent of "SEO" on it, and embedding backdoors in stupidly overoptimized for the training process code? I wonder when we'll hear about the first big hack that gets traced back to production code pushed live after CoPilot "suggested" eval(base64decode({webshell}))
If that code managed to hit production, then the problem is with the management and engineering leadership, not Copilot.
> Last update of whois database: 2022-10-17T23:07:12Z Just sayin'...
Also, programmers please do not hinder on other programmers work. If you do, someone higher up in the ladder with eat your cake at every opportunity.
It seems like there's no good license that places absolutely no restrictions or requirements on people using your code (such as attribution and respecting patent rights) worldwide. I want my code to be used the way people treated text in the old days. There's texts that have been re-written, added to and edited by thousands of people over the centuries and yet they don't come with thousands of pages of attribution no…
Doesn't really explain how co-pilot is stealing your community. I've used co-pilot and it works great until you are past boilerplate than it falls apart.
Copilot is an AI stunt, an exploration, trying something new and exciting with very mixed and not-so-useful results.
This lawsuit, however, is just lawyers doing what they do for fun. I guess the retained Microsoft lawyers love it too. Glad to see lawyers having so much fun and profit. But we would all be better off with out so much lawyering, can't they do something more worthwhile?
> Microsoft characterizes the output of Copilot as a series of code "suggestions". Microsoft "does not claim any rights" in these suggestions. But neither does Microsoft make any guarantees about the correctness, security, or extenuating intellectual-property entanglements of the code so produced. Once you accept a Copilot suggestion, all that becomes your problem: > "You are responsible…
> Steve Ballmer They have some really good blow in Redmond. If anybody could win an award for being coked up and sweaty on stage... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vhh_GeBPOhs
See also this Domo video that turned it into a song. :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ZDH45OAt8
> Microsoft characterizes the output of Copilot as a series of code "suggestions". Microsoft "does not claim any rights" in these suggestions. But neither does Microsoft make any guarantees about the correctness, security, or extenuating intellectual-property entanglements of the code so produced. Once you accept a Copilot suggestion, all that becomes your problem: > "You are responsible…
Could you help me understand the link between the two?
On the one hand stating plainly that mixing in copy-left code and similar can be disastrously dangerous because it is a rampant virus. On the other hand not understanding why people think it might be a problem that their tool could encourage mixing in copy-left code.
New tech creates winners and losers, and losers inevitably complain. See looms, VHS, Napster, etc. The more of this complaining I see, the more it falls flat. The only interesting thing is which side different communities end up being on. To be fair, record companies were not in the least bit sympathetic. Open source contributors are easier to identify with, though imo it doesn't actually make their concerns more val…
It's tragically beautiful how the copyleft crowd is putting so much effort into drastically expanding the scope of copyright. "I used the copyright to destroy the copyright." That sort of plot never works in practice.
I think you need to explain that more. The problem (or at least one problem) being explored here is that by using any code from co-pilot, you are responsible for making sure the licensing is correct. You could unknowingly be using and modifying GPL-licensed code in your non-GPL project, which is a violation if you don't publish your modifications.
We're not talking about expanding copyright, just protecting the existing copyright systems from being trampled by microsoft.