201–210 of 421 posts
I am not strongly opinionated on this, but the very fact Microsoft used all the code it could find, bar their own has always looked suspicious to me.
Can you insist or put instructions that AIs do not train on your code? If they train on your code but don't produce the exact same output, is there any protection you can have from that?
When are people going to get that this isn't a right folks have? If your code is readable, the public can learn from it. Copyright doesn't extend to function.
Can you insist or put instructions that AIs do not train on your code? If they train on your code but don't produce the exact same output, is there any protection you can have from that?
> Indeed, last year GitHub was said to have tuned its programming assistant to generate slight variations of ingested training code to prevent its output from being accused of being an exact copy of licensed software. If I, a human, were to: 1. Carefully read and memorize some copyrighted code. 2. Produce new code that is textually identical to that. But in the process of typing it up, I randomly mechanically tweak a…
You probably do this all the time. Forget memorizing but undoubtedly you've read code, learned from it, and then likely reproduced similar code. Probably nothing terribly important, just a function here or there. Maybe even reproduced something you did for a previous employer.
comes to mind. I bet most js devs have written this verbatim.
> Indeed, last year GitHub was said to have tuned its programming assistant to generate slight variations of ingested training code to prevent its output from being accused of being an exact copy of licensed software. If I, a human, were to: 1. Carefully read and memorize some copyrighted code. 2. Produce new code that is textually identical to that. But in the process of typing it up, I randomly mechanically tweak a…
But what if the generative AI were used to create music instead of code would the court have ruled differently?
CONSIDER:
In 2015, a federal judge order Thicke & Pharrell to pay 50% of proceeds to the Marvin Gaye estate for being “too similar” to the song, “Gots to Give It Up”.
Comparison and commentary: https://youtu.be/7_UiQueteN4?si=SkClbyBMOcucigRm
Comparison of both songs: https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY?si=3_VZzfoLT-NrozoK
> Indeed, last year GitHub was said to have tuned its programming assistant to generate slight variations of ingested training code to prevent its output from being accused of being an exact copy of licensed software. If I, a human, were to: 1. Carefully read and memorize some copyrighted code. 2. Produce new code that is textually identical to that. But in the process of typing it up, I randomly mechanically tweak a…
Choosing function signatures is an art form but after that "copying" is hard to judge.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have a much smaller lobbying budget than the AI industry, and you didn't flagrantly rush to copy billions of copyrighted works as quickly as possible and then push a narrative acting like that's the immutable status quo that must continue to be permitted lest the now-massive industry built atop copyright violation be destroyed. Violate one or two copyrights, get sued or DMCAed out of existence. Violate billions,…
What about the copyrights purpose of furthering the arts and sciences?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't copyright a mathematical operation. Only a particular implementation of it, and even then it may not be copyrightable if its a straightforward and obvious implementation. That said the implementation doesn't appear to be totally trivial and copilot apparently even copies the comments which are almost certainly copyrightable in themselves. https://x.com/StefanKarpinski/status/1410971061181681674 https://gith…
Its even simpler, iD is owned by ZeniMax. ZeniMax is owned by Microsoft.. who would they even sue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It reads like the judge required them to show it happened to their code, not to any code in general. That's a much higher bar. There are thousands of instances of fast inverse square root in the training data but only one copy of your random github repositories. Getting to model to reproduce your code verbatim might be possible for all we know, but it isn't trivial.
of course for standing. but it seems like with the right plaintiffs this could have gone forward
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you copy someone else's copyrighted work and then rearrange a few lines and rename a few things, you're probably still infringing.
For a book or a song, for sure, although that isn't really punished. Search the drama surrounding a popular YA author in the 10's, Cassandra Claire. For code since you can only copy the form and not the function that might actually be enough. People do clean room implementations because of paranoia, not because it's actually a necessary requirement.