101–110 of 496 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should Github Copilot be trained on private, closed-source, proprietary code?
Yes, AI should be trained on every piece of information possible. Am I allowed to become a better programmer by looking at private, (illegally leaked) closed-source, proprietary code?
Closed beta. Requesting access requires filling out a four page form. Product page is a bunch of hand-selected images. Nothing to see here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.
If you study a closed source compiler (or whatever) in order to write a competitive product, and the company who wrote the original product sues you for copying it, as the parent suggests, you're on shaky legal ground. Which is why clean room design is a thing.
But fundamentally the problem is copyright, the copying of existing IP, not knowledge. grondo4 is completely correct that there is no legal framework that prevents learning from closed-source IP.
If such a framework existed, clean room design would not work. The initial spec-writers in a clean room design are reading the protected work.
IMHO,it was only a matter of time before the big names started to include AI generations on their software. I'm guessing if most of the AI design tools that are being launched everyday and which relies mostly in consuming a public api could be easily absorbed?
People have been talking about things like ChatGPT Doing code, but I just realized... something like ChatGPT could be incorporated right into your IDE. Think Clippy, for Code... " I see you're trying to write a recursive function to compute finocacci. Would you like help? " Or Code Reviews / Static-Code-Analysis: "Hey Visual Studio. I've written a RESTful API for my application. What do you think of the approach, arc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't ask if can I use other people's proprietary closed source code, obviously they have the right to that code and how it's used. I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. There is no license that says "You cannot learn from this code and take the things you learn to become a better programmer". That's exactly what I do and it's exactly what AI do.
> I asked if I can learn from that code, which obviously I can. Did you actually read the link you were given? Clean room design is because you may inadvertently plagiarize copyrighted works from your memory of reading it. i.e. the act of reading may cause accidental infringement when implementing the "things you learn"
You're describing thought crime right now. It's not illegal to learn things.
What this reinforces is that unlike with previous big innovations (cloud, iphone, etc), incumbents will not sit on their laurels with the AI wave. They are aggressively integrating it into their products which (1) provides a relatively cheap step function upgrade and (2) keeps the barrier high for startups to use AI as their wedge. I attribute the speed at which incumbents are integrating AI into their products to a…
I think you're missing a fundamental reason: adding AI functionality into products is simply easier. That is, these companies are largely not doing the hard part, which is creating and training these models in the first place. The examples you gave of of cloud and iPhone have both huge capital barriers to entry, and in iPhones case other phone companies just didn't have the unique design talent combination of Jobs an…
Are they the hard parts though? The short time it took from the first waves of public excitment around DALL-E to stable diffusion being the well established baseline looks more like the class quantity of problems that can be reliably solved by shoving enough resources at it. What I consider hard problems are those full of non-obvious dead ends are where no matter how much you invest, you might just dig yourself in deeper.
Interesting that the large company AI products (this, Microsoft copilot, etc) are so much more compelling than any of the startups I’ve seen. Makes me think that we haven’t seen what true innovation looks like in this space. Right now, AI is a feature, not a product. Edit: Not talking about the models themselves (stability, mid journey, GPT-x), talking about what is built on those models.
Part of the reason for this is that very often the best applications of AI are really invisible to the user, making everything a little bit better, quietly behind the scenes.
The same is true for software in general. The best software products automate loads of stuff behind the scenes so from the user perspective they just click a button and the thing they want to happen, happens.
Perhaps the most successful and important AI product is a great example of this: the spam filter. I bet most younger email users don't even realize how much value this old AI tool provides them unseen.
But the trouble is making effective AI products is not "sexy" right now, and if your team ships one it won't get any credit in a big company. I've had my PM instantly shoot down plenty of interesting applications of AI that wouldn't be very visible to the customer or larger product-org.
Anyone able to comment on where in their opinion the measure is for current state of copyright law when generative AI is a subset of an image?
1. Are the AI systems violating the copyright protections of the images they were trained on? If so, are users of such AI systems also in violation of those copyrights when they create works derived from those training images?
Answer: That's not yet settled.
2. If you make an image with an AI system, is your new image eligible for copyright protection, or is it ineligible due to the "human authorship requirement"?
Answer: The US Copyright Office recently wrote[1] that your work is eligible for copyright if you altered it afterwards in a meaningful way. Here's a quote:
>When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship. As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.
>In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.
[1]: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05...
IMHO,it was only a matter of time before the big names started to include AI generations on their software. I'm guessing if most of the AI design tools that are being launched everyday and which relies mostly in consuming a public api could be easily absorbed?
People have been talking about things like ChatGPT Doing code, but I just realized... something like ChatGPT could be incorporated right into your IDE. Think Clippy, for Code... " I see you're trying to write a recursive function to compute finocacci. Would you like help? " Or Code Reviews / Static-Code-Analysis: "Hey Visual Studio. I've written a RESTful API for my application. What do you think of the approach, arc…