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

All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 734 posts

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#171

Post by crazygringo »

0x0 wrote: post #7

To the people arguing it's "fair use" to use this for training an ML network. Where do you draw the line? What if you train an "ML network" with one or two inputs... so that they almost always "generate" exact copies of the inputs? Five inputs..? Ten? A thousand? A million?

The line is exactly the same line that's always been drawn in fair use cases.

There's absolutely nothing different whether the creator is ML or a human.

Generally, if you train an ML network to generate an almost exact copy of a thousand lines, it's obviously not fair use. If it's five simple lines, it obviously is fair use. If it's somewhere in between, there are a lot of different factors that need to be weighed in a fair use decision, which you can easily look up.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#172

Post by Hamuko »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #140

Open source developers need a new kind of license with a ML model training clause, so there is no more ambiguity if they don't want their code to be used in this way.

People have been suggesting this ever since Copilot was announced and it doesn't work on any level. They're using all code on GitHub, even the ones with no license and which you can't use for any purpose and the reasoning is that they see it as fair use - which supersedes any licenses and copyrights in the US.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#173

Post by adn »

underyx wrote: post #133
fragileone wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then if you were discovered using it in a commercial project you can fairly be sued for it. Unless you're trying to argue that you should for some reason get an exemption?

Would I be found guilty if I could prove that I didn’t explicitly copy that code but rather just happened to write the same code by arriving at the same solution as the original one I had seen years before?

Nobody can answer this because it depends on the code and the resources of the entity suing you, but in general yes. This is why clean room design is a well-defined strategy: depending on the code and company, you would indeed not be allowed to work on the project because of the fact you'd seen a competitors solution previously.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#174

Post by FeepingCreature »

contravariant wrote: post #38
Yoric wrote: post #13

Out of curiosity, how do we define license violation in that case? I, as a human being, have trained by reading code, much of which is covered by licenses that are somehow not compatible with code I'm writing. Am I violating licenses? Asking seriously. It's really unclear to me where law and/or ethics put the boundaries. Also, I'd guess it's probably country dependent.

If you were to write large swaths of copyrighted code from memory then yes you'd be committing a copyright violation. Most humans don't do so unintentionally though.

Just as an example, this is very widespread in music though.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#175

Post by ghoward »

rubyist5eva wrote: post #140

Open source developers need a new kind of license with a ML model training clause, so there is no more ambiguity if they don't want their code to be used in this way.

I made new licenses [1] [2] that attempt this. The problem with adding a clause against ML training is that that is (supposedly) fair use. What my licenses do is concede that but claim that the output of those algorithms is still under the copyright and license.

I hope that even if it wouldn't work, it puts enough doubt in companies' minds that they wouldn't want to use a model trained by code under those licenses.

[1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/poisoning-github-copilot-and...

[2]: https://yzena.com/licenses/

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#176

Post by Hamuko »

surfingdino wrote: post #62

I am not surprised given who the owner of GitHub is. Now, let's assume for a while that a private repo is left marked as public by mistake and Copilot regurgitates it... Lawyers are going to have fun with that one.

The worse scenario for GitHub is when a leak is published on GitHub. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/8/16992626/apple-github-dmca...

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#177

Post by nradov »

p0ckets wrote: post #148
ghoward wrote: post #70

This is why I relicensed my code [1] yesterday to a license I wrote [2], which is designed to poison the well for machine learning. [1]: https://gavinhoward.com/2021/07/poisoning-github-copilot-and... [2]: https://yzena.com/yzena-network-license/

I think to actually poison the well, we should add code to existing repos with dead code clearly labelled as "the way that things shouldn't be done" that are wrong in subtle ways. So every time we fix a security issue, we keep the version with the bug with some comments indicating what's wrong with it. Of course, this only works until the AI is trained to weigh the code based on how often the code is called.

The notion of intentionally polluting and over complicating your code base just to "poison the well" is bizarre. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If you don't want others to use your code then the solution is very simple. Keep it on a secure private server and don't publicly release it.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#178

Post by _Understated_ »

schneidmaster wrote: post #162
_Understated_ wrote: post #92

Ok, my curiosity has been fired here... I have conjured up two scenarios here: Let's say I use copilot to generate a bunch of code for an app, something substantial, and it regurgitates a load of bits and pieces from many sources it got from GitHub, I'd assume there won't be any attribution in it... it will be as if Copilot made the code itself (I know it sort of does but lets not split hairs!). I'm guessing the prev…

There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright. This article[0] does a pretty good job of summarizing the rationale that the courts have provided. My (non-lawyer) take is that GitHub is pushing this just half a step farther -- if computers can consume copyrighted material, and…

I don't doubt that an army of lawyers has poured over this but they have size on their side: the cost of litigation vs potential revenue will be a massive factor.

Edit: > There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement.

That means their computer can read any code it wants, do whatever it wants with the code, then they can monetise that by giving YOU the code. Would they then be indemnified by saying "no Microsoft human read or used this code"?

However, if you then use the code and look at it, does that make you liable?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#180

Post by La1n »

ghaff wrote: post #168
La1n wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we now also not seeing now why people would want to do that? A multi-billion dollar company using people work to make more profits without paying them. I definitely understand why people pick a license that disallows use someone doesn't agree with. Imagine baking cookies for your friends, and one of them reselling them. The material effect is the same to you, you gave away your cookies, but sometimes you make/do…

People can do whatever they want with their work, including not sharing it at all. But a great deal of the value that's come from open source generally has been that open source licenses haven't imposed the sort of usage-based restrictions (e.g. free for educational use only) that were fairly common in the PC world. And, to your example, in the case of software the incremental copy that your friend sold cost you abso…

>So it comes down to a purely emotional response to someone else making money off something you made.

Exactly, as I said, the material situation is the same. But we all are emotional beings, you would do certain things for your family you wouldn't for strangers. I don't think this case is any different.

I personally don't work for free for a company, but I do charity work for free. Working for a company in the time I work for a charity would "cost me absolutely nothing" if I already spend the time anyway, but everyone understands the difference.

Post reply on HN