261–270 of 824 posts
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but this feels like it's more a law firm and individual looking to profit and make their mark in legal history rather than an aggrieved individual looking for justice. Programmer/Lawyer Plaintiff + upstart SF Based Law Firm + novel technology = a good shot at a case that'll last a long time, and fertile ground to establish yourself as experts in what looks to be a heavily litigated area o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit… I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.
What they're doing is a service, though. Say that $10 million worth of damage against others has been done. If the law firm does not act, the villainous curs who caused that damage get to keep their money and are incentivized to do it again. If the law firm does act and prevails, then the villains lose their ill-gotten gains (in favor of the law firm and, sometimes, to an extent, the injured parties). That's preferab…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Multiple cursors wont do what the parent comment is talking about without a lot more work.
Why? You can copy and paste the entire section, and use multiple cursors to add in the brackets. going from a: 'one', to a['one'], just requires you to add two brackets and remove the colon. With multiple cursors you can do that exact same operation for all lines in a few keystrokes.
I hope this case will fail and establish a good precedent for all future AI litigations and may be even prevent new ones. Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. If you don't like this, don't make your code open source. This was happening and is happening independe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it doesn't make sense to criticize the plaintiff looking for a profit… I don’t know man, I can simultaneously see the systemic issue that needs to be solved and also critique someone for subcoming to base needs like greed when they don’t have the need.
Is a startup founder looking for a big payout succumbing to greed? These people are just following incentives.
Laws need to change to match technology. Did you know before airplanes were invented common law said you owned the air above your land all the way to the heavens.
Can you explain what damages you incur from Copilot?
I hope this case will fail and establish a good precedent for all future AI litigations and may be even prevent new ones. Your code is open source - irregardless of license, one might read it as a text book and then remember or even copy snippets and re-use this somewhere else unrelated to the original application. If you don't like this, don't make your code open source. This was happening and is happening independe…
Open source does not mean public domain. Open source specifically attaches limitations on how the code may be reused.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No thank you. I put a license to be followed, not to just be disregarded by an AI as "Learning material". No human perfectly reproduces their learning material no matter what, but Copilot does.
So are you ok with it being illegal for humans to learn from copyrighted books unless they have a license that explicitly allows learning? That does not sound like a pleasant consequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a lawyer since this is nonsense.
Is it? A similarly casual clause in the OCB license prevented OCB from being used by the military for many years (granted, it prevented OCB from being used almost everywhere else, too). I have no idea if this license language works or doesn't, but this is hardly the least productive subthread on this story. It's concrete and specific, and we can learn stuff from it.
“AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well.
I’m sure my own open source code is in that thing. I did not see any attributions, thus they break the fundamentals of open source.
In the spirit of Rick Sanchez; It’s just compression with extra steps.