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

GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 473 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#121

Post by nmfisher »

giansegato wrote: post #32
goodpoint wrote: post #27

What is more concerning is that the training kernel belongs exclusively one private company. Microsoft. It can become a massive (and unfair) competitive advantage. Furthermore, Copilot will not work with less popular languages and also prevent popular languages from evolving.

This feature is effectively impossible to replicate. Only Microsoft positioned itself to have: - dataset (GitHub) - tech (openai) - training (azure) - platform (vscode) I'm impressed. They did an amazing job from a corporate strategy standpoint. Also directionally things are getting interesting

I actually don't think there's much of a moat here at all.

GitHub repositories are open for the taking, GPT-XXX is cloneable (mostly, anyway) and VS Code is extensible.

They definitely have a good head-start, but I really don't think there's anything here that won't be generally available within 2 years.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#123

Post by gradys »

toss1 wrote: post #102
invig wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can read open source code, learn from it, and write your own code, why can't a computer?

As the original commenter said, you have the capability for abstract learning, thought, zand generalized learning, which the "AI" lacks. It is not uncommon to ask person to "explain in your own words..." - as in use your own abstract internal representation of the learned concepts to demonstrate that you have developed such an abstract internal concept of the topic, and are not merely regurgitating re-disorganized in…

The AI most certainly does not lack the ability to generalize. Not as well as humans, but generalization is the key interesting result in deep learning, leading to papers like this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05468

The ability to generalize actually seems to keep increasing with the number of parameters, which is the key interesting result in the GPT-* line of work that Copilot is based on.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#124

Post by Ygg2 »

jackbeck wrote: post #68
throwaway3699 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point? Linux is already open under GPL 2.

He mentioned that the Linux-like kernel will be closed source which violates GPL

Does it, if code was written by a bot that trained on Linux kernel?

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#125

Post by toyg »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #49

This goes into one of my favorite philosophical topics: John Searle's Chinese Room. I won't go into it here, but the question of whether an AI is actually learning how to code or simply substituting information based on statistically common practices (or if there really is a difference between either) is going to be one hell of a problem for the next few decades as we start to approach fine points of what AI is and h…

> However, legally, the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense.

That's... a mind-bendingly bad take. Google took an API definition and duplicated it; Copilot is taking general code and (allegedly) duplicating it. This was not done in order to enable any sort of interoperability or compatibility.

The "API defense" would apply if Copilot only produced API-related code, or (against CP) if someone reproduced the interfaces copilot exposes to consumers.

> Microsoft has a good defense.

MS has many good defenses (transformative work, github agreements, etc etc), but this is not one of them.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#126

Post by baryphonic »

If someone could show that the "copilot" started "generating" code verbatim (or nearly verbatim) from some GPL-licensed work, especially if that section of code was somehow novel or specific to a narrow domain, I suspect they'd have a case. I don't know much about OpenAICodex, but if it's anything like GPT-3, or uses that under the hood, then it's very likely that certain sequences are simply memorized, which seems like the maximal case for claiming derivative works. On the other hand, if someone has GPL'd code that implements a simple counter, I doubt the courts would pay much attention.

I do wonder, though, if GPL owners worried about their code being shanghaied for this purpose could file arbitration claims and exploit some particularly consumer-friendly laws in California which force companies to pay fees like when free speech dissidents filed arbitrations against Patreon.[0] Patreon is being forced to arbitrate 72 claims individually (per its own terms) and pay all fees per JAMS rules. IANAL, so I don't know the exact contours of these rules, or if copyright claims could be raised in this way, or even if GitHub's agreements are vulnerable to this loophole, but it'd be interesting.

[0]https://www.dailydot.com/debug/patreon-suing-owen-benjamin-f... (see second update from July 31).

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#127

Post by amelius »

WillDaSilva wrote: post #87
spottybanana wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> trillions in capital will be captured by the 0.01%. How is that different from the current situation?

It is very similar to the current situation, but intensified. Technology tends to be an intensifier for existing power structures.

Except some random nobody can become a disruptor.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#128

Post by kingsuper20 »

I was just musing about whether this kind of tool has been written (or is being written) for music composition, business letter writing, poetry, news copy.

Interesting copyright issues.

Anyone who thinks their profession will continue as-is for the long term is probably mistaken.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#129

Post by amelius »

invokestatic wrote: post #69
jordemort wrote: post #56

What happens when someone puts code up on GitHub with a license that says "This code may not be used for training a code generation model"? - Is GitHub actually going to pay any attention to that, or are they just going to ingest the code and thus violate its license anyway? - If they go ahead and violate the code's license, what are the legal repercussions for the resulting model? Can a model be "un-trained" from a…

By uploading your content to GitHub, you’ve granted them a license to use that content to “improve the Service over time”, as specified in the ToS[1]. That effectively “overrides” any license or term that you’ve specified for your repository, since you’ve already licensed the content to GitHub under different terms. Of course, people who are not GitHub are beholden to the terms you specify. [1] https://docs.github.co…

> By uploading your content to GitHub, you’ve granted them a license to use that content to “improve the Service over time”, as specified in the ToS.

That's nonsense because they could claim that for almost any reason.

E.g. assume Google put the source code of Google search in Github. Then Github copies that code and uses it in their own search, since that "improves the service". Would that be legal?

It's like selling a pen and claiming the rights to anything written with it.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#130

Post by [deleted] »

all_rights_rsvd wrote: post #115
toyg wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically then I'm infringing as soon as I clone your repo, possibly even as soon as a webserver sends your files to my browser. "All rights reserved" makes sense on final items, like books or physical records, that require no copy or change after owner-approved manufacturing has taken place. It doesn't really make sense on digital artefacts.

So don't clone it, read it online. I reserve all rights, but I do give license to my host to make a "copy" to let you view it. I do that specifically to prevent non-biological entities like corporations or AI from using my code. If you're a biological entity, I specify you can email me to get a license for my code for a specific, defined purpose. I have a conversation with that person, then I send them a record numbe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN