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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#511

Post by k_roy »

klyrs wrote: post #163
rockemsockem wrote: post #128

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…

> "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.

Nah, mostly what we've learned is that AI has become lazy enough that it goes out to Stack Overflow just like the rest of us.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#512

Post by bamboozled »

andyp-kw wrote: post #504
nightski wrote: post #498

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I'm not worried about the end user using copyrighted code. That is their responsibility. If you have verbatim GPL code in your commercial closed source code base that is a liability and it might be dangerous to use copilot. What I have more of a problem with is Microsoft charging for copilot which was trained on copyrighted code without any permission whatsoever which they really have no right to utilize/c…

As a human, if I learn how to program by studying copyrighted code, is it unethical for me to use that knowledge to make a living ?

The difference is this, you’re likely working for the company whose proprietary code you’re working on and using as a “training model” while contributing to the greater good of that codebase.

You’ve been authorised to see this code.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#514

Post by broodbucket »

naikrovek wrote: post #414
moolcool wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> MS absolutely has the authority to copy, use, and even train their models on your GPL-license code, because you agreed to let them do that when you signed their EULA when you decided to host your code on GitHub. What about GPL code which you don't own, but post to Github, Like the gcc mirror repo?

read the terms of service. you must have the right to publish the code you put on github.com, and by publishing to github.com, you assert that you have the rights to do so. you also grant GitHub the right to show that code to others, no matter what license your code is licensed under. why does no one read the terms of service or license agreements? these questions are answered there and this "copilot is stealing" stu…

Even if it is true that the ToS that noone reads allows GitHub to blatantly violate the license of your code that anyone could choose to upload to GitHub without the copyright holder's consent, people are going to do it anyway en masse, and that code is going to get eaten by Copilot. Even if copyright holders are constantly playing the game of reporting public repos to GitHub to remove it's not going to be enough.

>this "copilot is stealing" stuff won't even make it to court

IANAL but I am heavily skeptical of your confidence here.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#515

Post by burkaman »

woah wrote: post #491

It would be sad if someone succeeded in shutting down CoPilot for this kind of copyright stuff. It is genuinely useful. I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content. The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions that have already been copy and pasted thousands of times onto GitHub without proper licenses. Luckily, someone will probably come out with a "renegade" vers…

I don't think most people are concerned that Copilot is going to be reproducing verbatim copyrighted code, it's more that it sucks that a giant corporation is going to make a billion dollars from a tool that is entirely built off of millions of peoples' work who were never asked permission and will never be compensated.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#516

Post by adastra22 »

maoeurk wrote: post #490
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…

> 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. It's not obvious to me that (2) is a violation of copyright. Unlike patents, copyright violation is not as simple to prove. My understanding is that, at least in the US, independent creation is a valid defense against copyright infringem…

Get Stable Diffusion to output Micky Mouse and see how far you can use that commercially without Disney stomping down on you hard.

Outputting copyrighted material is a violation of copyright, period. Whether that violation is enforceable depends on your means though.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#517

Post by baby »

woah wrote: post #491

It would be sad if someone succeeded in shutting down CoPilot for this kind of copyright stuff. It is genuinely useful. I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content. The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions that have already been copy and pasted thousands of times onto GitHub without proper licenses. Luckily, someone will probably come out with a "renegade" vers…

I call these people open source haters. They selectively choose what they want open source to mean, and are against the fundamental ideas of open source.

Long live Copilot. It’s an amazing product that shows what we are capable of thanks to crowdsourcing and bleeding edge technology. We live in the future, and progress never remembers those who tried to stop it.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#518

Post by abigail95 »

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…

Fair use is baked into copyright law, "full stop".

The only way to prevent all uses of your code is to keep it secret.

If anyone wants to say me using copilot violates their copyright, then sue me. But if you have no loss of reputation or revenue, and I have an innocent infringer defense - noone can stop me.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#519

Post by qu4z-2 »

boomskats wrote: post #17

Everything else aside, the design on this site is among the best I've ever seen. Amazing typography, great to read on a phone.

For me I gave up on reading it almost immediately despite being interested in the topic because the damn typography was too exhausting.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#520

Post by dmix »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #506
woah wrote: post #491

It would be sad if someone succeeded in shutting down CoPilot for this kind of copyright stuff. It is genuinely useful. I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content. The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions that have already been copy and pasted thousands of times onto GitHub without proper licenses. Luckily, someone will probably come out with a "renegade" vers…

> It would be sad if someone succeeded in shutting down CoPilot for this kind of copyright stuff. It is genuinely useful. I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content. Sure — in the same way that hacking into a competitor's GitHub account and copying their private source code is "genuinely useful" to you. As the person benefitting from unlawfully using their source code, of course you wouldn't care that it rep…

> in the same way that hacking into a competitor's GitHub account

That's like comparing grand-theft auto to someone stealing a pack of gum from a convenience store. It's not a useful analogy. The latter is still a problem, but we don't need to be FUDy about it.

And OPs right, this will keep happening until we come up with better ways of solving this problem.

Whether that's educating companies on the legal (and moral) risks their developers IDE tools are exposing them to, better licensing database/indexing, working with future OSS devs building these tools instead of treating them like criminals, suing the for-profit companies like Microsoft who seek to profit from this until they invest in this problem, etc.

Post reply on HN