201–210 of 242 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memorizing a sizable fraction of Windows source code so you can take it to Apple sounds like the most pointless and difficult heist imaginable!
This sounds like the plot to a Netflix movie...
One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of copyright.
For Nvidia, the most likely reason they've strongly avoided Open Sourcing their drivers isn't anything like that. It's simply a function of their history. They used to have professional level graphics cards ("Nvidia Quadro") using exactly the same chips as their consumer graphics cards. The BIOS of the cards was different, enabling different features. So people wanting those features cheaply would buy the consumer gr…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then you'd be able to draw and type out everything from scratch directly on your employer's PC and not have to download it via USB drives or email, like this guy did.
So if you obtained an idemic memory via installing a camera, flash drive and io ports into your brain? How or why is the mere transport method of information the distinction between infringement of IP vs not?
Transport method it is because it means there's hard proof and a paper trail of the IP theft that you can prove in court. Memorizing something has no paper trail and also leads to a clean room deisgn. That's why companies want to hire people or entire teams, to do clean room deign, without any of the original data.
If I go watch a movie and then tell people what I saw it's fine. If I record the movie with a camera and show it on screen that's the IP theft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just like with social media, all it takes is one person to not honor that request, and boom! your shit is out there. Sure, you can fire the offending party, but you can't just ask Co-pilot to not use your contributions. That's like asking the internet to give those pictures back. It ain't gonna happen.
It's quite a different from the analogy you suggest, as copilot is controlled by a single organisation and we know the address.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this reason, and a few others, my workplace simply put a blanket ban on these kinds of tools. If our code is never exposed to the learning tool, it’s never in danger of being showing up somewhere else. Incidental to that, I feel like these tools expose the reality behind “copyrighting code/math” and how fallacious it is. If the tool can generate the efficient methods of achieving a result, I think it becomes obvi…
If you use GitHub, you feed OpenAI with your code as training data already, with GitLab you do the same for Google.
Do you have some evidence that github trained copilot on private repositories? They've been pretty clear about claiming they only used public repos.
Also, gitlab is not owned by Google AFAICT but is instead a publicly traded company.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeaaahhh... I'm not going to argue about this. It's basically "Religion and politics," in this crowd, and discussions don't end well. I apologize for my joke.
Huh, I wasn't trying to argue one license is better than the other. I was just trying to clarify what the licenses require. I didn't want someone to see your comment and think that it would be ok to use someone else's MIT-licensed code in a product without giving credit.
For work, I’ve definitely had to bury the fineprint MIT credits on some random help screen. It’s easy enough to do.
Re TFA: it’s kind of nice doing a bit of open source work on the job when you can reference or use random utility code later. There’s only so many times I want to write code for walking a dictionary in JavaScript or whatever.
As with anything, there are shades of gray and certainly more or less scrupulous ways to behave. Stealing GB’s of code is a bit much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But with enough training data, it's not generating it because it remembers the exact code line for line, it does it because it knows that to be a good method. Especially if you ask it to refactor it, that's a whole new creation even if it's been done before by some engineer somewhere.
It's still parroting what other people did, it's not doing any math reasoning, and it's not any different to LLMs seemingly able to compose prose or poetry. If you want to make an argument that math or software shouldn't be copyrighted, LLMs actually make the case for stronger copyright protections.
Maybe, but as long as managers and shareholders all over the world are excited about the upside of the new technology, this is very unlikely to happen. ;)
LLMs would be dead in the water legally, if their owners had to account for every bit of IP the LLMs have been trained with.
One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of copyright.
For Nvidia, the most likely reason they've strongly avoided Open Sourcing their drivers isn't anything like that. It's simply a function of their history. They used to have professional level graphics cards ("Nvidia Quadro") using exactly the same chips as their consumer graphics cards. The BIOS of the cards was different, enabling different features. So people wanting those features cheaply would buy the consumer gr…