If someone says "stochastic parrot" as an argument I know they have no idea what they are talking about.
That's calling a human a bunch of cells. It's true, but you are losing track of the (astronomical amount of) emergent properties.
Saying Goodbye to GitHub
51–60 of 450 posts
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they claiming that it's fair use? IANAL, but wouldn't that make the licence irrelevant if training AI/ML models was found to be fair use? And if not, it's a licence violation anyway?
IANAL either, but the license still applies to the end-user (the person who trained the AI) so it would seem like it would add at least 1 non-trivial license violation for that user? Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
> I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
Fair use helps artists, journalists, and (indirectly) the general public. It prevents censorship of critical or opposing views, among a lot of other uses that are beneficial to society (see sibling comment). US copyright law is backwards in a lot of ways but this isn't one of them.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#53While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.
It's a personal blog. The author has no obligation to keep it to the standard of a trade magazine. Blogs are supposed to be subjective and it's okay for a blog post to be harsh if the author feels so.
[flagged]
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#54I stopped a while back. And now I'm unsure what I think given the AI revelations.
On the hand MS gave a great product to programmers for free, and on the other they've used the code therein to do a lot of junior programmers out of their future jobs, and then again this will increase the productivity of many programmers, for a profit.
It's hard to be too critical yet I'm no fan either.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#55> It's a stochastic parrot Stopped reading right there. The author clearly has no clue of how neural networks work or what makes them tick.
"stochastic parrot" is an interesting shibboleth for a certain school of thought on the capabilities of LLMs, but i think it is uncharitable to make the leap straight to "has no clue of how neural networks work". on some level, all of us who spend our free time enough to know what "stochastic parrot" refers to have some idea how NNs work, and on another, none of us know how NNs really work.
we could all do with a bit more humility dealing with this topic and each other.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#56See I've been doing Open Source for a long time and I love that GitHub/OpenAI/Microsoft is training on my code.
I want it to be helpful.
I'd prefer to run my own version, but we are I guess between 3 and 6 months from having competitive open offerings.
When I write open source code I'm serious about the open, non-discriminatory nature of it.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#57[deleted]
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#58While I agree with the general observation of the article, the tone and wording feels needlessly harsh and subjective. Sentences like „I could go to GitLab, but they have their own fair share of issues and a disgusting UI/UX.“ really diminish the article and by association, also the author.
I don't understand why GitLab (as in gitlab.com) doesn't focus more on the discovery part in order to make people feel more welcome. I was using github.com/explore almost daily while it lasted. The trending repositories by language were an amazing tool to discover new tools and ideas. I really wish GitLab had something equivalent to this!
I think gitlab just gave up on trying to compete with github.
They don't care about anything other than enterprise use cases, which are mostly on private instances.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#59I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started working on open source projects, AI was a far-off concept. Speaking for myself, I thought we'd see steady improvement in code-completion tools, but I didn't think I'd see anything like GPT-4 in my lifetime. Licenses were written for humans working with code. W…
> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license.
They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones.
GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.
Re: Saying Goodbye to GitHub
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started working on open source projects, AI was a far-off concept. Speaking for myself, I thought we'd see steady improvement in code-completion tools, but I didn't think I'd see anything like GPT-4 in my lifetime. Licenses were written for humans working with code. W…
I agree that AI usage of code is somewhat murky with current licenses,which obviously don't mention it either way. Free software has a principle of "freedom to run, to do whatever you wish" (freedom 0), so arguably has said that training AI is OK. (We could quibble over the word Run, but the Gnu.org,and RMS clearly say "freedom 0 does not restrict how you use it." GPL code can be used by the military to develop nucle…
I have no problem with Copilot being trained on AGPL code and the getting released with a AGPL compatible license. Free to do whatever they want with it.
The problem is Copilot training on source code and then discarding any restrictions of the licenses. Maybe it is legal right now but I'm sure this case will find it's way into open source licenses pretty soon.