I think that Microsoft should train copilot with their own code (they own certainly enough lines of code after all). If they think that that would not be a fair use, then why should be a fair use to use somebody else's code?
GitHub Copilot investigation
701–710 of 1001 posts
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
the octopus would like a word with you
What is an octopus if not a society of cells?
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#703Let us just work on cool technical things without having to worry about this kind of bullshit.
Knowledge data should be free to copy and do whatever we want with it
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#704Let us just work on cool technical things without having to worry about this kind of bullshit. Knowledge data should be free to copy and do whatever we want with it
> Knowledge data should be free to copy and do whatever we want with it
I'm more of a copyleft fan. Feel free to copy my stuff, but you have to make it open source as well.
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just sounds like blaming the researchers to me. How would i ever know if my "boring code completion" was actually copyright infringement? Your argument just disallows discussing the problem while doing absolutely nothing about it. If you train your dog to NOT attack random passersby and it still does, that dog is euthanized no matter your intentions.
Tim Davis doesn't actually have any instance of copyright infringement to complain about; he was able to induce Copilot to /mostly/ recreate his code through careful prompting, but no one has actually deployed the code. By the same token, we don't outlaw ctrl-c and ctrl-v buttons on computers. There is plenty of space here to discuss developing tools to check for unintentional infringement. I would guess, though, tha…
I think we have an ideological disagreement here. I'm not part of the "open source" movement, I believe in free software. Although I'm not prolific, I have authored some free software and shared it widely. I want people to have it, use it, and share it, so long as they extend the same rights to their users.
Now my software has been assimilated into a proprietary blob. Had that blob been free, like my software within it, I would have accepted it, but it's not. It's controlled exclusively by Microsoft and OpenAI, two entities which I place no trust in.
For me the dog has already bitten. The free software I extended to an audience I believe would show the same generosity has instead been made into a proprietary product.
The "copyright" question for me is not a question of "fairness" or ability of Microsoft or anyone else to make a product. For me it's a tool to protect my contribution from proprietary business.
Basically. I dont want the animal safer, I want it free (according to the FSF freedoms).
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's hardly a new thing! For instance, Google search makes billions of dollars by indexing content that other people make.
Google Search links to the original content. Copilot doesn't.
Maybe but it also uses those index cards that show a summary of information so you don't need to navigate to the actual website that contain the original content, there might be a link there but it's usually small and practically unnoticeable.
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#707All this just shows one thing : copyrighting / licensing "code" is meaningless... but of course that was already known by all those people who think that the US laws about copyright should not have been propagated to the rest of the world.
"Code" is merely an algorithm put to work. There should be nothing inherently copyrightable about this, no more so than the recipe take a chocolate is just a way to put chocolate and a few other ingredients to work.
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
This just sounds like blaming the researchers to me. How would i ever know if my "boring code completion" was actually copyright infringement? Your argument just disallows discussing the problem while doing absolutely nothing about it. If you train your dog to NOT attack random passersby and it still does, that dog is euthanized no matter your intentions.
If you build a system that has a high likelihood of breaking the law in normal expected use, and then it's found to break the law, shouldn't we disincentivize that in some way? Is that just blaming the researchers/developers, or is that just making people respect the law? I think the important thing to note in both dog attack scenarios presented is that the owner is responsible in both cases. Either they purposefully…
I'd argue that the law was already broken when my free and viral software was included in a non-free package.
Personally, i don't care about the end users. If you want to read my source i welcome that. I just want the CoPilot model and system open, since it was based (in part) on my work. Otherwise they are free to remove my work.
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#709This is so stupid I can’t believe how this community has become toward some of the most inspiring new technology I’ve seen in a decade.
Re: GitHub Copilot investigation
#710Here 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 clear enough to me that training AIs on copyrighted works is typically or commonly a fair use under existing law
Which laws are considered in this case? I understand that fair use is a US concept. For example how does that apply to my projects, published and licensed by a European living in a European country? I would expect the majority of GitHub contributors to not be based in the US, so what laws should be considered?