421–430 of 1001 posts
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.
It is…
Why would anyone want to stop Copilot is beyond me. Reinventing the wheel, millions of time a day, is an atrocity. Millions of (wo)man hours, wasted, every single day, on writing solutions to problems that have already been solved. There is a partial solution to this, and it's making people angry, it's crazy. If you put your code publicly on the internet, you should expect that people will reuse your code at some poi…
> Reinventing the wheel, millions of time a day, is an atrocity. > Millions of (wo)man hours, wasted, every single day, on writing solutions to problems that have already been solved. There is a partial solution to this, and it's making people angry, it's crazy. Following this line of thought, do you think that all code from all software should be open source and publicly available (and free to copy and use), in the…
Why are you asking this as if the answer might be no?
I'll just leave y'all with my favorite of the things you keep telling me to STFU about art AI with: If you're the kind of programmer who feels threatened by this, then you're not a real programmer.
What do people think the future looks like where publicly available resources on the Internet (art, code, etc) aren't fair use for training ML models? Where you have to opt into models or can opt out (and many wind up doing so)? OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, et al will STILL train such models that can do all the same things, but it will be much harder for non-industry-backed individuals to navigate the legal minefield w…
> What do people think the future looks like where publicly available resources on the Internet (art, code, etc) aren't fair use for training ML models? Where you have to opt into models or can opt out (and many wind up doing so)? A future where technology is developed in accordance with longstanding law? Also, maybe a future where my copyrighted works are compensated for when they're being used to automate my job aw…
Maybe this is not the industry to emulate: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/how-mus...
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.
I'm assuming you're referring to fair use. In that case whether it's copyright infringement or not is very situational (the legal standard consists of a test with various subjective factors) and isn't as simple as "it's less than a paragraph so I can copy whatever I want".
Why would anyone want to stop Copilot is beyond me. Reinventing the wheel, millions of time a day, is an atrocity. Millions of (wo)man hours, wasted, every single day, on writing solutions to problems that have already been solved. There is a partial solution to this, and it's making people angry, it's crazy. If you put your code publicly on the internet, you should expect that people will reuse your code at some poi…
Training must be opt in, not opt out.
Every artist, every creative individual, must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to having their hard work regurgitated anonymously by Copilot or Dall-E or whatever.
If you want to donate your code or your painting or your music so it can easily be "written" or "painted", in whole or in part, by everyone else, without attribution, then go ahead and opt in.
But if they don't EXPLICITLY OPT IN, you can't use the artist's or author's creative work for training.
All these code/art washing systems, that absorb and mix and regurgitate the hard work of creative people must be strictly opt in.
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.
Note that this may not actually be true, and you may need to pay to license even shorter excerpts of creative work. Copyright is a complex topic. It's not always safe to assume that you have the rights you think you have, in terms of reproducing others' work.
For example: "The proportion of a total work is not the only factor, though. If you are including the most crucial aspect of a work, even if it is only a small part, then the question of “substantiality” comes into play." [1]
[1] https://www.dukeupress.edu/getmedia/3363cb6e-04b6-43ec-b004-...
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…
Not everyone believes in intellectual property and good luck enforcing that license worldwide.
Why would anyone want to stop Copilot is beyond me. Reinventing the wheel, millions of time a day, is an atrocity. Millions of (wo)man hours, wasted, every single day, on writing solutions to problems that have already been solved. There is a partial solution to this, and it's making people angry, it's crazy. If you put your code publicly on the internet, you should expect that people will reuse your code at some poi…
> Reinventing the wheel, millions of time a day, is an atrocity. > Millions of (wo)man hours, wasted, every single day, on writing solutions to problems that have already been solved. There is a partial solution to this, and it's making people angry, it's crazy. Following this line of thought, do you think that all code from all software should be open source and publicly available (and free to copy and use), in the…
Let's help shape this thought: Copyright should be abolished entirely. It is one of many monetization schemes and its negative effects greatly outweigh its positives.
We know people won't stop writing software in the absence of copyright. We know they won't stop writing books, singing songs, etc. Copyright is not the primary motivator for either science or art.
Will we need new monetization structures? Of course. But generally speaking we already have them where it matters.
End copyright entirely.
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.
Whether or not it is infringement depends on if the use can be considered fair use. This is a more nuanced question and is not always clear.
In this case (Copilot) the real question is how transformative the AI training is. Given how verbatim some of the outputs are makes the argument less clear.