Google just sells content other people wrote.
Copilot sells code other people wrote
111–120 of 838 posts
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#112Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. No book, painting, codebase, sonnet, design is theft-less. The art is the space reduction, otherwise we’d just bruteforce away.
Unless every invention is gonna be AI generated (which is kind of a scary situation), intellectual property still needs to be a thing (otherwise people won't have incentive to invent, it'll just be stolen from them).
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#1131. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub.
2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists.
3. This is just a smart tool so you don't have to figure out yourself what to copy&paste (in the best case) and save a lot of time.
Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this. What is broken are copyright and patent laws in the 21st century.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#114Copilot sells the service of finding the code that makes sense for what you write. Would be better if it could correctly attribute the source(s) though, I hope they will solve this problem at some point.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then another hypothesis: you probably haven't found the right tools for it yet. I find myself writing biolerplate mostly around some obscure system framework calls (iOS/macOS), but that's rather rare. But even OS API's and frameworks do evolve over time into requiring less boilerplate. Just take the evolution of CoreAudio, the modern Swift interface is so much better. So at the end of the day it's about the tools and…
Maybe github copilot is the right tool.
I don't think so. A human-verified, tested and maintained code is obviously superior to a snippet blindly copied and mixed by a statistical system.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#116No post body was provided.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#1171. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub. 2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists. 3. This is just a smart tool so you don't have to figure out yourself what to copy&paste (in the best case) and save a lot of time. Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this. What is broken are copyright and patent laws in the 21st century.
I don't think that something like CoPilot is what most GH users had in mind when they published their code. Also, licenses exist (which CP demonstrably doesn't give a shit about).
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Or are 'influence' and 'theft' the same now? They have been the same for most of history. People could openly copy titles, plots, parts, phrases, etc from prior work. Same for mechanical designs. The only thing preventing them was obscurity (e.g. the inventor trying to make it hidden) not any law or ethical idea that it's bad (there wasn't any). That's how things from math to gears to tunes got better (or changed o…
Except that AI will not lead to "golden ages of art production" because nobody gives a sh*t about art created by AIs. And nobody will.
That's a lot of people to dehumanize with a single swift no true Scotsman.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#119Pretty soon the world is going to come to realize art/creation is just blending, incrementing and repurposing prior art. No book, painting, codebase, sonnet, design is theft-less. The art is the space reduction, otherwise we’d just bruteforce away.
This type of argument always distracts from the fact that figuring out where we draw the line between theft and reimagining. The Magnificent Seven for instance was a reworking of Seven Samurai, but stands on its own as an original creation. Going into a cinema and filming a picture to later put on a torrent site is not artistic reworking. The hard discussion is about what is acceptable, we all know prior art exists.
There are many differences between those acts of thievery or inspired creation however you might call it. But there are many similarities too. Fascination with the original is one. Desire to own it in one way or another is one too. Differences are in the skills, the means, the result, what was stolen and financial success that came out of the act.
Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote
#120> Hector Martin: If you use Copilot, you are basically playing Russian Roulette that the random mashup of existing, copyrighted, hegerogenously licensed code that you get out of it qualifies as an original work, mostly by chance. Or that nobody will ever sue you otherwise. Well, that's already the case with Stack Overflow copypasta enterprise code. If anything, use of Copilot would be an improvement...
That quote applies to any creative work. Be it code, audio or video.