Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

githubcopilotinvestigation.com

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#601
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.

Ok so you don't care about the second part of the argument, you don't care about the danger of violating copyright.. The first question though is if training on large bodies of OSS is fair use. Are you saying you don't care about the copyright of your own work either? Or you don't care because you don't publish your work OSS?

I’m sure I’ve done more to OSS than 95% of commenters here. I publish my code under MIT when possible (and WTFPL for smaller projects), and yes, please train on my work or split out my functions verbatim, they are far less valuable than some people seem to believe. I don’t even care about the attribution part of MIT, it’s simply a nice to have when decent people use my code.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#602
post #535

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.

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

It should be noted that some juristictions are starting to restrict this (e.g. Australia). Also I would argue if Google would randomly display content of full websites and never post links to the original content it would be in a lot more legal trouble.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#603
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…

Humans do violate copyright if they use copyrighted passages directly in their work and pass it off as their own without any attribution, which is what copilot has been show to sometimes do, though not always. Copilot will sometimes offer chunks of code that can be found verbatim in open source code bases and passes it off to users without attribution. I agree it is ok to learn from copyrighted work and reproduce new…

[deleted]

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#604
post #517
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 definition of "open-source" will be given by the license included with the software (or lack thereof). It could mean that we adhere to the Open Source Initiative, or it could mean that the source code is freely available even though its use is not permissive. The license will tell, not your pre-defined conception of "open-source".

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#605
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…

It seems pretty clear to me, training an AI on copyrighted materials is not fair use. I'm not sure why you seem to think it is fair use

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#606
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…

> 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 cultur…

AI copyright drama is my favorite gossip these days because it can’t be reconciled until we accept that intelligence is created and held by societies, not individuals. Recent AI is a new way to exercise that intelligence, but it presents a major conflict with capitalism.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#607
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…

It seems pretty clear to me, training an AI on copyrighted materials is not fair use. I'm not sure why you seem to think it is fair use

> I'm not sure why you seem to think it is fair use

I think OP explains clearly, in many paragraphs, why it's fair use. That's literally what their whole post is about.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#608
There's been a lot of discussion around licenses but I'm not even sure if they matter for Copilot. I was reading their terms and conditions and there's a paragraph that basically says they have the right to display and share your code with other users. So even in the case where people are directly prompting Copilot with specific function names, I think the terms and conditions still cover them.

> We need the legal right to do things like host Your Content, publish it, and share it. You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time. This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

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

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re clearly producing derivative works.

I think you're saying any work created by a model trained on copyrighted data is a derivative work of that copyrighted data. But this can't be right, it is inconsistent with how copyright has worked so far. Artists and musicians and engineers all learn from each other and have seen and learned from, "trained on" many other examples of works from their field. Even when works are clearly inspired by other works we tend…

courts in the US have repeatedly ruled that humans and machines aren't the same in the eyes of copyright. for example under current case law, nothing created exclusively by a machine is copyrightable.

Re: GitHub Copi­lot inves­ti­ga­tion

#610
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…

What stops humans from reproducing thinly disguised copies of their influences is, essentially, their ethical judgement. Which amounts to saying, humans are trained with a model that they can use to recognize when something they are thinking of producing is 'too similar' to something they have seen before. And, of course, some humans choose not to apply that filter and go ahead and plagiarize anyway; some humans try…

That's a great point about what we naturally do.

> In the case where an AI is coming up with the work, perhaps the mistake is in relying on humans to try and apply their own trained judgement to figuring out if the result is unoriginal. We need an AI that scores work for how likely it is to be infringing on a prior copyright.

Isn't that latter AI going to be more likely to need to contain verbatim copies of original works? Or maybe not?

This in turn (and the SFC's and the law firm's concern about the GPL) makes me think that there are several different things that people may be concerned about machine learning systems doing:

* they could allow you to access verbatim copies for "consumptive" use (like if you asked an AI a question about what the text of a chapter of a Harry Potter novel was, and it answered you correctly)

* they could facilitate intentional or unintentional plagiarism, and, in the case of publicly-available works that are published under a license, intentional or unintentional reproduction or creation of derivative works contrary to that license

* they could contain something like a verbatim representation and allow you to use that in various ways that themselves are not extracting or literally copying that representation, but where the original copyright holder might complain that the existence of an unlicensed copy inside the model is already objectionable

* they could contain representations of uncopyrightable subject matter which was learned through training on copyrighted works, which can then be used to compete with the original creators for jobs, prestige, or attention, or can be used to produce works that the original creators would have found offensive or objectionable (this case isn't supposed to be restricted by copyright at all, but that doesn't necessarily stop people from caring!)

Not only will the same measures not prevent or avoid these cases, but if you wanted to prevent the first and second situations, one of the easiest ways to do it might be to literally include verbatim copies of lots of works inside a machine learning model! (along with software specifically trained or programmed to warn you against unintentionally making uses the user or copyright holder finds objectionable ... to facilitate the exercise of "essentially, their ethical judgement", as you put it)

Post reply on HN