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

GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

githubcopilotinvestigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#391

Post by black_puppydog »

cryptonector wrote: post #381

Maybe MSFT should have one instance of Copilot for each common license, and then the user gets to pick which licenses they want to deal with when using Copilot. If you're writing code for a BSD-licensed codebase, you might accept Copilot trained on BSD- and MIT-licensed code, as well as any other license that's compatible with BSD. If you're writing code for a proprietary codebase you might want to exclude Copilot tr…

Don't give them a more complicated problem. It seems like they're already struggling with any distinction between code they can and can't use for this. :|

Which is ironic given that this is Microsoft. Whatever happened to "don't use programmers' code without paying them" and the whole "proprietary software is better because it sustains the programmer"?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#392

Post by [deleted] »

gfodor wrote: post #376
klyrs wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "look I prompted CoPilot for this piece of code that I already knew about and it spit it right out" https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554 An english description plus three characters of a function name is enough to coax CoPilot into distributing LGPL-licensed code out of context, without a proper license. That's neither "emotional" nor "cherry-picked", it's a clear-cut license violation.

It's a violation but this examples doesn't jive with how I use Copilot, for whatever that is worth. Usually Copilot takes into account context and integrates the various bits into a whole that fits in with the surrounding code. The "empty file, type function signature" use case feels somewhat dubious to try to understand actual, not theoretical, harm. Though I respect the right for this person to defend their rights.

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#393

Post by annexrichmond »

nonasktell wrote: post #367
Ecco wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re missing the point. It’s not an ego problem: if you put your code on the internet with a license you should expect people to respect the license’s rules…

Expect you're not licensing functions, you're licensing a repository. If I use a sentence or even a paragraph from a copyrighted book, it's not copyright infringement.

then why do people put copyright and license notices on the top of every file in the repo?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#394

Post by hw »

nonasktell wrote: post #365
mkr-hn wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one wants to stop what Copilot is being sold as. They want to stop the company selling it from doing what it is famous for doing.

Copilot is not selling code, they're selling GPU time. If you're ready to buy a hundred GPU/TPUs to train a new Copilot that is just as good, but for free, then go do it please, everyone will thank you

So you are saying, copyright does not apply to Spotify when it comes to music because they aren’t selling the music but rather a service to olay said music from a catalog?

Also to your other comment about copyright not being an issue if you just use a paragraph from a book - I am not a lawyer but I would think that copyright applies just the same way it applies to musicians who use portions of the melody of other musicians’ songs.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#395

Post by robswc »

klyrs wrote: post #362
zo1 wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is this guy's function copy-pasted on a SO question: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/17913191/using-typedef-i... Found it after 5 mins and a couple tweaks to the search terms. Another: https://vdoc.pub/documents/direct-methods-for-sparse-linear-... Someone copied this guy's book and put it on scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/514019650/Direct-Methods-for... Someone put it on a "personal" edu page: http…

Other people doing it doesn't make it okay.

Jumping into this but I've honestly lost my train of thought, lol

That said... is that any different from someone copying and pasting into their code vs copilot doing it?

If someone randomly pastes code that has a copyright, and people use it, how are they supposed to know they shouldn't be using it?

I imagine we're talking functions here though. Not sure if Copilot would reproduce entire libraries unprompted if they're not open-source, anyone have an answer?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#396

Post by faeriechangling »

ROTMetro wrote: post #294
nomagicbullet wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Our laws and rules were created for a cultural context that is quickly becoming outdated. I feel there are many valid criticisms of AI today, but demonizing the technology doesn't allow for fruitful discussions. We need to evolve our thinking and we need to be open minded to do so first.

What makes the rules outdated? The fact that you want to get away with what they were designed to prevent?

Yes, I like doing things that people prevent me from doing.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#397

Post by naikrovek »

armchairhacker wrote: post #37

One issue I see with Copilot is that they get free access to all open-source data on GitHub, but using GitHub APIs to download the data yourself isn't possible (rate limiting). This is an unfair advantage. Copilot is not only making money off of open-source, they are making money off of open-source in a way others can't. I would love to see a lawsuit which requires GitHub to provide their full Copilot dataset.

competitive advantage is not a monopoly, nor is it unfair.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#398

Post by jonathankoren »

rockemsockem wrote: post #194
klyrs wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "look I prompted CoPilot for this piece of code that I already knew about and it spit it right out" https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554 An english description plus three characters of a function name is enough to coax CoPilot into distributing LGPL-licensed code out of context, without a proper license. That's neither "emotional" nor "cherry-picked", it's a clear-cut license violation.

I mean, he clearly knew about that code in advance and used his prior knowledge to coax Copilot into spitting it out, yeah? Three characters can get you pretty far, that's 1 combination out of 125,580 (considering all english letters, upper and lower, along with most of the numbers and symbols on my keyboard), plus the description of a fairly complex algorithm. Also, this code is really just executing a mathematical…

> Even if it is a copyright violation, that is one out of, IDK, millions, maybe billions already of Copilot completions?

Are you saying that because there are millions of copyright violations, Copilot is too big to fail? Or are you’d saying that Copilot is too big to be held accountable for flagrant violations of the law?

I guarantee Copilot’s developers knew it was spitting out verbatim code. It’s too obvious, and probably would result in a perfect rating for the prompt.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#399

Post by naikrovek »

jarsj wrote: post #304
bo1024 wrote: post #247

There are two issues -- (1) feeding copyrighted material in to an AI model, and (2) getting copyrighted material out . The latter is obviously a violation of copyright, full stop. The former, to me, is obviously not a violation. If it were, that would massively tilt the playing field in favor of large corporations. It would become very hard to independently train your own models. Philosophically, I go by the principl…

But is it illegal for AI to provide the said assistance ? That, I believe, is the bigger question.

when you put your code on GitHub.com, you grant GitHub the right to show that code to others.

https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

this is separate from the license you specify in the repository and you can't revoke it without removing your code from github.com.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#400

Post by gjkqfc »

naikrovek wrote: post #377

Here's the thing about GitHub that most people do not realize. I find this funny because of all the talk of following license agreements, very few have taken the time to read the terms of service for GitHub. from their terms of service: "Short version: You own content you create, but you allow us certain rights to it, so that we can display and share the content you post. " emphasis mine. that's what they call the "S…

> but you all were already mad anyway ...

This seems to be the line of argumentation agreed upon by several waffling pro-GitHub posters. Many comments have some variation on that diversion from the issue.

> GitHub gets their own rights to your code.

This is preposterous and false. GitHub has the right to display the entire work, properly attributed and licensed, to others.

No new licenses are given, no dual-licensing takes place, no code-laundering is permitted.

Post reply on HN