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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#531

Post by abigail95 »

CoastalCoder wrote: post #165
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, but I also hate how so much of our substantive law basically has to be created by the courts because (a) many of our legislatures, especially at the federal level, have become more and more non-functional, and (b) IMO legislatures are especially bad at implementing technical legislation. I think there is a good, fundamental legal/societal question of how copyright should apply to AI output. I just don't think…

I agree. Any law that's only clear after a court ruling is, de facto, an ex post facto law. Disgusting.

What the solution?

Is it really better to only draft laws that are clear without courts?

Is that provable?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#532

Post by rmahan »

burkaman wrote: post #515
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.

GitHub’s free code storage, static site hosting, etc. is compensation

If you aren’t paying for the product, you are the product.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#533

Post by shbooms »

baby wrote: post #517
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.

> the fundamental ideas of open source

A bit ironic that Copilot itself is not open source.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#534

Post by braingenious »

I’m really interested in seeing how this gets litigated. I imagine it will involve a lot of philosophical arguments about attribution and what the software is actually doing.

I’m also curious to see if/how Amazon CodeWhisperer takes advantage of this whole debacle.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#535

Post by johnfn »

burkaman wrote: post #515
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.

That's hardly a new thing! For instance, Google search makes billions of dollars by indexing content that other people make.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#536

Post by jakelazaroff »

oefrha wrote: post #530
jakelazaroff wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I use Copilot all the time and I’ve never once used it to generate a whole prepackaged function that’s more than maybe three lines. So no, I don’t benefit from its reproducing other people’s code at all. Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it.

That isn't sufficient to get you off the hook. Copyright covers derivative work, not just code that's reproduced verbatim.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#537

Post by qu4z-2 »

Andys wrote: post #262
jacooper wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not my problem. I put my time and my effort to open source a program for free and I want to make sure that my code creates an incentive to create more free software, by using a copyleft license.

Oh, so you're saying Copilot doesn't actually go far enough. It should not only give you code snippets but enforce particular licensing of the code it is helping you create?

If it feeds you code made available under the GPL, it should probably tell you that your code needs to comply with the GPL to use that snippet, yes?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#538

Post by wraptile »

skytrue wrote: post #350

It's always interesting to see the buzz that occurs when Copilot is brought up as a topic. This place is called "HackerNews", yet routinely people forget that a "hacker" is somebody using technology to overcome novel problems. Doesn't GitHub Copilot fall into this category? Why is there such an outcry over a technology that has been in the public's hands for less than a year? I'm almost certain that the team responsi…

I think main argument that it's a proprietary piece of software that piggy backs on hacker (GPL) culture for profit. If they released open source copilot it would be less of an issue and theft of GPL code would be less painful. Some people worry that this will kill the GPL and hacker culture which is already extremely difficult to protect.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#539

Post by remram »

oefrha wrote: post #530
jakelazaroff wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I use Copilot all the time and I’ve never once used it to generate a whole prepackaged function that’s more than maybe three lines. So no, I don’t benefit from its reproducing other people’s code at all. Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it.

> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it.

You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it?

That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#540

Post by oefrha »

remram wrote: post #539
oefrha wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use Copilot all the time and I’ve never once used it to generate a whole prepackaged function that’s more than maybe three lines. So no, I don’t benefit from its reproducing other people’s code at all. Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it.

> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it. You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it? That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever.

They should at least try to understand how it’s actually used, not imagining how it’s simply used to steal their largely replaceable code.
Post reply on HN