211–220 of 450 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These tools are useful now Guns are also useful tools because you can take them into a store and get things for free as a result. But that doesn't make okay to do.
Robbing people does not benefit anyone but yourself. This is a terrible analogy.
The current model basically says that as soon as you publish something, others can pretty much do with it as they please under the disguise of "fair use", an aggressive ToS, the like.
I stand by the author that the current model is parasitic. You take the sum of human-produced labor, knowledge and intelligence without permission or compensation, centralize this with tech about 2 companies have or can afford, and then monetize it. Worse, in a way that never even attributes or refers to the original content.
Half-quitting Github will not do anything, instead we need legal reform in this age of AI.
We need training permission control as none of today's licenses were designed with AI in mind. The default should be no permission where authors can opt-in per account and/or per piece of content. No content platform's ToS should be able to override this permission with a catch-all clause, it should be truly free consent.
Ideally, we'd include monetization options where conditional consent is given based on revenue sharing. I realize that this is a less practical idea as there's still no simple internet payment infrastructure, AI companies likely will have enough non-paid content to train, plus it doesn't solve the problem of them having deep pockets to afford such content, thus they keep their centralization benefits. The more likely outcome is that content producers increasingly withdraw into closed paid platforms as the open web is just too damn hostile.
I find none of this to be anti-AI, it's pro-human and pro-creator.
> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…
This whole open source thing is the biggest farce on planet Earth. Someone with a good knowledge about geeks and their behaviour concocted up this open source bullshit. So now talented people give their skill to the "whole" and they have to beg for contributions and donations to get by. And other geeks (not suits with ties) finance the ones they sympathise with. It's ridiculous. And faceless entities use their hard w…
I abandoned github the day that they (and others, including people here) started arguing that their ToS trumps your code's license. That's absurd. It's authoritarian, it's hostile, it's an act of enmity. Fuck all that bullshit. I do business with no entity, period, that treats me with that level of disdain.
Yeah and it's like, nonsensical for the service: if you are working in open source, the reality is that a lot of the time you are working with software you don't own. I develop a lot of software, and the vast majority of it was open source... but I've only ever put two projects of mine on GitHub (and one only because I was working with some other people and I essentially got outvoted ;P). And yet, if you search for m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They don't impact the current legality of a license, but it will affect future ones. Don't they? Even the most liberal licenses require that you at least keep the license and attributions. Which are exactly the parts that AI systems remove. I would have no problem with an AI system trained on GPL code if the output was still covered by the GPL.
Whether or not copyright applies at all to model training is an entirely open question, and where rulings have come down, it's likely closer to these situations being fair use (e.g. the Google Book's case, which was ruled transformative and not a direct replacement for the works in question). The reality is, these models don't copy or distribute anything directly, which makes applying copyright a bit of a stretch. Ma…
If they rule that it's ok to do that, I might be ok with AI being ruled as fair use.
If someone were to break Microsoft licensing terms and give me a copy of windows code Then if I read that and built my own understanding Then if I used that knowledge to implement my own version of windows that was compatible with Microsoft’s and distributed it under my own license Would that be legal? WINE etc are built in clean room environments for good reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Co-pilot spits back protected expressions, not novel expressions based on ideas harvested from code. It is therefore violating the licenses of numerous free and open source projects. The author is right to be pissed.
This seems to be what people imagine about it, not what it actually does, although I don’t doubt you could cherry-pick some snippet after a lot of trial and error to try to claim that it had regurgitated something verbatim. But certainly let’s see the examples.
While 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!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.
The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are…
If the github ToS supercedes the author's own licence, then I guess the uploader is effectively relicensing the code without the author's permission. That would mean the author has cause for action against the uploader, but not against github.
I personally dislike git; I find it too complicated, because of features I don't need. Microsoft has always disliked FOSS anf GPL, and I suspect that Copilot is a deliberate effort to undermine it.