281–290 of 475 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lawsuit is about attributions and licenses, not about copyright infringement.
It's the same issue. It's only valid if the code produced is the same than the code learned.
AI advancements are shining a light on how warped our society has become. We _should_ invent technology to better our lives, but instead its become something to fear as it might destroy our livelihoods. I understand the threatening feeling AI brings, but rather than squashing innovation we should be rethinking the role of our economy, copyright, and intellectual property.
I suspect that a lot of the people lining up on the other side against GitHub/Microsoft won't be so happy if the courts further lock down permissible uses under copyright across the board. More specifically, if Copilot breaks the "rules," so too does (probably--IANAL) pretty much every generative AI project out there. Restricting training to public domain datasets would be very limiting.
It will be a long list, but just a list.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's more entitled? The coder who has no issue with their unoriginal code being copied and mixed with millions of other samples and churned out in a helpful way for others, or the one who demands attribution in the most trivial of cases, or denies the access in these forms as it doesn't credit their brilliance in implementing a sort function? I'm in the first category; I'm guessing by your abusive response you are i…
Nice straw-men you're collecting there. First one: Uses of attribution and copyleft licenses are just ego-boosting, instead of legitimate protection of authorship against corporate piracy. Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive. Third strawmen: that people who oppose CoPilot in its current form just want to defend copyright around boi…
No. You are being abusive when you throw out insults to a commenter who argues something you disagree with - please don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, and check the HN guidelines before commenting further, as you are repeating the hostile and condescending tone and should know better.
So really it boils down to attribution, therefore if GitHub were to disclose attribution to all the copyright owners of the code used to train the model, then this issue will be mute. It will be a long list, but just a list.
https://github.com/search?q=license%3Acc0-1.0&type=Repositor...
All repos with a particular license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice straw-men you're collecting there. First one: Uses of attribution and copyleft licenses are just ego-boosting, instead of legitimate protection of authorship against corporate piracy. Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive. Third strawmen: that people who oppose CoPilot in its current form just want to defend copyright around boi…
"Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive." No. You are being abusive when you throw out insults to a commenter who argues something you disagree with - please don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, and check the HN guidelines before commenting further, as you are repeating the hostile and condescending tone and should know better…
I'm still baffled as to why people treat Github like a public library despite being owned by what was at one time the greatest enemy of free and open source software in existence. Not saying they haven't changed their tune somewhat, but a library owned by Barnes and Noble is going to have very different incentives than an actual library. Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourse…
>Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourself for five bucks a month Ah, but GitHub isn't selling git hosting. It's a social network that also does git. That's the cake that Microsoft bought, not the UI and API frosting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans aren't machines, so it won't affect education at all. This argument is a distraction.
Humans are machines actually. Whether what Copilot does can actually qualify as "learning" vs. merely generating derivative works might actually be relevant.
I'm still baffled as to why people treat Github like a public library despite being owned by what was at one time the greatest enemy of free and open source software in existence. Not saying they haven't changed their tune somewhat, but a library owned by Barnes and Noble is going to have very different incentives than an actual library. Made all the more silly by the fact that it's Git. You could just host it yourse…
That's because there's no feedback loop of what you're saying, in the active lives of the people interfacing with GitHub. Consider an example of ingesting poison. If the poison tastes bad, I'll be sure to spit it out immediately, either by involuntary disgust, or because I associate with that negative feeling of being poisoned, something I don't want, so I react. But what if the poison tastes good? And what if it not…