Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab Duo

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Gitlab Duo

#111

Post by arghwhat »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #77
arghwhat wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just in case people didn't know, the phrase "all rights reserved" does not have any legal consequence (in the early days of copyright people felt it was necessary, but all rights are automatically granted), and uploading content to Github means that you must also license it to Github and other Github users as per the ToS. It is your responsibility to ensure that you can grant that license. https://docs.github.com/en/…

> You grant us and our legal successors the right to store, archive, parse, and display Your Content, and make incidental copies, as necessary to provide the Service, including improving the Service over time A couple things - you agree github can do it, ostensbly taking archives for backups sure, but in this case it's to distribute out to some 3rd party and explicitly to be locked in a vault with no business purpose…

I agree that Github has rights to parse any uploaded code, and any code with a license that would allow a human to study and learn from it does, in my opinion, also allow a machine to study and learn from it.

Granted, the machine has to learn to not directly plagiarize in the same manner humans are not allowed to when they use acquired knowledge - unless the license allows it of course - but the act of studying material that is allowed to be read cannot be considered harmful.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#112

Post by radarsat1 »

AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #106
pryelluw wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mind explaining further ?

Not much to explain, that's just how Fair Use doctrine is currently interpreted. It's not really morally right in this context ("greater good" rationalists will argue with me on that) but so far the courts haven't spanked anyone too hard for using that loophole.

They take publicly accessible code and learn to predict good token strings from it to solve related or unrelated problems. I am not convinced this is not morally right.

What they are not doing, as far as I can tell, at least not intentionally, is just copying code and removing the license and attribution. Even if you don't see the AI output as legitimately "creative", it's certainly transforming and remixing existing solutions in ways that are transformative enough not to be just copies of anything except the most bog standard boilerplate, which is usually not a copyright issue.

People seem upset because there is money to be made, if there was no money involved I don't think anyone would see any issue here.

It's not about the greater good, and I don't mean to be an apologist, but I just legitimately don't see a problem with doing it, or how it's not fair use. It really does seem like fair use to me.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#113

Post by pid-1 »

mdaniel wrote: post #96
pid-1 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~5 years ago GitLab had many features that distinguished itself from competition, chiefly their CI/CD stuff. It was leagues above of what everyone offered. They've spent the last years building stuff I don't care while not improving the stuff I care. During this period, GitHub built Actions. Nowadays GitLab is more expensive than GitHub (GitLab Premium vs GitHub Enterprise) while also not having any particular featur…

I'll also observe that several years ago they weren't a public company, and if my mental model of public companies is correct then they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, not software engineering teams value from their product

For most companies maximizing shareholder value and making customers happy are highly correlated. No amount of AI features will save their stock performance if their customer base stalls.

Broadcom-like companies (monopoly) and Google-like companies (you are the product bla bla bla) are exeptions though.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#114

Post by mdaniel »

pid-1 wrote: post #113
mdaniel wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll also observe that several years ago they weren't a public company, and if my mental model of public companies is correct then they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value, not software engineering teams value from their product

For most companies maximizing shareholder value and making customers happy are highly correlated. No amount of AI features will save their stock performance if their customer base stalls. Broadcom-like companies (monopoly) and Google-like companies (you are the product bla bla bla) are exeptions though.

My further life experience has been that markets are highly irrational, and as the other comments have said: if the shareholders believe AI is the bandwagon, and implementing Conan repository support is "well, churn gonna happen" then that's how one ends up with this bullshit

Re: Gitlab Duo

#115

Post by bufferoverflow »

olejorgenb wrote: post #36

We've tried this out for some weeks at my company and concluded it's not ready yet. As someone else mentioned they don't use state of the art models: https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/ai_features.html#language-mo... (though they are working on using Claude 3) The completion plugin for the JetBrain IDEs (pycharm tested) appear to be very barebones, and judging by the results - does not seem to take advantage of the cont…

Claude isn't open source. Doesn't that, by definition, mean that they leak your code to Anthropic?

Re: Gitlab Duo

#116

Post by xigoi »

radarsat1 wrote: post #112
AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not much to explain, that's just how Fair Use doctrine is currently interpreted. It's not really morally right in this context ("greater good" rationalists will argue with me on that) but so far the courts haven't spanked anyone too hard for using that loophole.

They take publicly accessible code and learn to predict good token strings from it to solve related or unrelated problems. I am not convinced this is not morally right. What they are not doing, as far as I can tell, at least not intentionally, is just copying code and removing the license and attribution. Even if you don't see the AI output as legitimately "creative", it's certainly transforming and remixing existing…

They take code with a license that prohibits using it to create preprietary software and use it to create proprietary software. It’s not about money.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#117

Post by xigoi »

golergka wrote: post #44
remram wrote: post #27

From that page: > Will my code be used for training AI models? > GitLab does not train generative AI models based on private (non-public) data. The vendors we work with also do not train models based on private data. So they will steal your code if it is public, ignoring license. Understood.

If a person can read it and learn from it, AI should be able to do the same.

People are not software.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#118

Post by xigoi »

thiht wrote: post #109
oblio wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a valid moral question here, in short: why? I care about helping other people. Helping some type of amoral entity that's usually controlled by another amoral for-profit entity: why would I help those?

Then use a license that say your code can't be used to train AI models. Honestly I agree that in the current state of things, it's fair for them to train on public data as long as the license doesn't forbid it. I learned to code this way, so it makes sense to allow AIs to do the same, for now. If it's a problem, just use another license.

Atmost all open source code has a licence requiring attribution. Where is the attribution?

Re: Gitlab Duo

#119

Post by danirod »

xyst wrote: post #22

Back to self hosting my code. Side note: Gitlab is one of the few companies to provide a self hosted version of their VCS. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html Also gitea is a much more lightweight option and can use sqlite for db. Much easier to deploy on a rpi

> Also gitea is a much more lightweight option and can use sqlite for db. Much easier to deploy on a rpi

Worth mentioning Forgejo as well (https://forgejo.org), which is Codeberg's fork of Gitea. Same features and as lightweight as Gitea. Hard-forked a couple of months ago after some transparency concerns from the new parent company that owns Gitea now.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#120

Post by xigoi »

thiht wrote: post #110
xyst wrote: post #22

Back to self hosting my code. Side note: Gitlab is one of the few companies to provide a self hosted version of their VCS. https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/install/requirements.html Also gitea is a much more lightweight option and can use sqlite for db. Much easier to deploy on a rpi

If you're concerned, you should switch the license of your code, not really where you host it. As long as your license allows LLM/AI models to train on your code, why would you be mad that it does?

My code has a license that disallows using it to create proprietary software, but it seems that proprietary LLMs are still being trained on it.
Post reply on HN