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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#541

Post by remram »

rmahan wrote: post #532
burkaman wrote: post #515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't give someone a dime (that they could have easily picked up from any of your competitors too) and then break into their house claiming they had been compensated. In this case they even steal code authored by people who never used GitHub at all, but had someone else mirror it or publish it on GitHub.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#542

Post by kovac »

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 ?

No, as long as you respect the original authors' terms of use of that "knowledge"

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#543

Post by chii »

granzymes wrote: post #318
treis wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not supposed to be able to use dominance in one market (git hosting) to gain dominance in another (AI powered code suggestions).

That might be true, if GiHub were a monopoly. But they are not.

a lot of people confuse popular with monopoly.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#544

Post by thrillgore »

pixl97 wrote: post #162
gfynt wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they continue that path, the future will be that OpenAI, Microsoft, Google etc. will pay larger and larger fines at least in the EU, until they are blocked entirely.

And the EU will continue to fall farther and farther behind in software development.

While continuing to represent individual rights? That sounds like a good compromise to me.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#545

Post by abigail95 »

PythagoRascal wrote: post #146
ClassAndBurn wrote: post #84

My view is the copilot is not stealing open source code. It is learning from it just as a human reader would. People's disguste is based on the assimilation of what they thought was a human trait being machine derived from their work. The copilot service backed by an army of actual humans wouldn’t be a story at all. Nor would anyone be angry, if an individual offered coding skills as a service, and had gone through t…

> It is learning from it just as a human reader would I don't see how that invalidates the copyright/license argument. So, instead of just a straight up license violation it's a license violation via plagiarism. That argument wouldn't hold up even if it was a human that caused the violation. You can't just paraphrase someones licensed work and then lie about looking at and pretend you made it yourself, which is basic…

> You can't just paraphrase someones licensed work

Yes you can. That's exactly why you paraphrased it instead of copying verbatim.

At the fringes, your transformation may not be enough to overcome the requirements, but that's an exception. Nearly all paraphrasing is legal by default.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#546

Post by SilasX »

schoen wrote: post #486

Here are a few thoughts I haven't formulated before: It seems clear enough to me that training AIs on copyrighted works is typically or commonly a fair use under existing law, because the AIs can and commonly do learn non-copyrightable elements and aspects of those works. It's very obvious from enormous numbers of examples that current AI systems are capable of learning much more abstract features of human culture (g…

>If human beings had much more accurate memories, copyright would be quite a bit more intrusive (and/or quite a bit less effective) because, following any exposure to some kinds of works, we could use our own memories to reproduce those entire works from scratch for our own use or pleasure without obtaining authorized copies from elsewhere.

I don't know the name, but I remember some sci-fi story about some academy where humans were trained from birth without exposure to music others had written and had to reinvent it on their own. Some would cheat and access the outside world's music, but they would always be caught by their later compositions all having obvious influence from conventional music.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#547

Post by josephcsible »

muzani wrote: post #440
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…

I think it's a gray area in the license. Much of the code was intended to be used freely and commercially by others, but not for AI training. It follows the license to the letter, but not the intent. I expect we'll see new licenses appear making it clear whether or not the content can be used for training.

There's nothing gray about it. The license requires attribution, and Copilot doesn't provide that attribution.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#548

Post by wilsonnb3 »

gernb wrote: post #364
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…

My 2 cents, 1. I think if you don't want your code re-used in CoPilot you should have that right 2. I think if CoPilot gets smart enough that it can read your open source code and then reproduce the algorithms without copying your code that should be fair use. It's the same thing a human would do. AFAIK CoPilot can not do that but I can certainly imagine it's not too many years away from that. 3. I think I would opt…

> 1. I think if you don't want your code re-used in CoPilot you should have that right

People already have that right - all you have to do is not host your code on GitHub.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#549

Post by qu4z-2 »

rafaelero wrote: post #274
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a useful tool doesn't make it legal.

Technical progress takes precedence over pitiful intelectual property discussions. If you don't believe that, I am not sure what you are doing in a community like this.

Being a hacker?

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#550

Post by bamboozled »

shbooms wrote: post #533
baby wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really had to laugh at this one...
Post reply on HN