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

301–310 of 473 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#301

Post by Closi »

not2b wrote: post #189
akerl_ wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without weighing in on the overall question of “is this a license violation”, you’ve created a false dichotomy. “GitHub included Microsoft proprietary code in the training set because they view the results as non-derivative” and “GitHub didn’t include Microsoft proprietary code because they view the results as derivative” are clearly not the only options. They could have not included Microsoft internal code because i…

Or: they used the entire open source corpus because they thought it was free for the taking, and when people point out that it is not (that there are licenses) they spin that (claim that only 0.1% of output is directly copied, but that would mean 100 lines in 100k program) and pass any risk onto the user (saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce). So they aren't saying that users are in the clea…

Also, 0.1% of output is directly copied doesn't include the lines where the variable names were slightly changed, but the code was still copied.

If you got the Microsoft codebase and Ctrl+F'd all the variable names and renamed them, I bet they would still argue that the compiled program was still a copy.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#302

Post by jozvolskyef »

thundergolfer wrote: post #8

Attempts to litigate any license violation are going to get precisely nowhere I bet, but I find the actual license violation argument persuasive. This is an excellent example of how the AI singularity/revolution/whatever is a total distraction and that a much bigger and more serious issue is how AI is becoming so effective at turning the output of cheap/free human mental labour into capital. If AI keeps getting bette…

The difference between this model and a human developer is quantitative rather than qualitative. Human developers also synthesize vast amounts of code and can't reference most of it when they use the derived knowledge. The scales are different, but it is the same principle.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#303

Post by IncRnd »

boxerab wrote: post #268
koonsolo wrote: post #54

I propose we as developers, start a secret society where we let the AI write the code, but we still claim to write it manually. In combination with the new working from home policies, we can lay at the beach all day and still be as productive as before. Who is in favor of starting it? ;)

"lay at the beach" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

That's four words. The word word doesn't mean what you think it means.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#304

Post by visarga »

AlotOfReading wrote: post #270
visarga wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a problem because it's possible to check if the code is verbatim from the training set (bloom filters).

It's not clear to me that verbatim would be the only issue. It might produce lines that are similar, but not identical. The underlying question is whether the output is a derivative work of the training set? Sidestepping similar issues is why GCC and LLVM have compiler exemptions in their respective licenses.

If simple snippet similarity is enough to trigger the GPL copyright defense I think it goes too far. Seems like GPL has become an obstacle to invention. I learned to run away when I see it.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#305

Post by finnthehuman »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #274
thundergolfer wrote: post #8

Attempts to litigate any license violation are going to get precisely nowhere I bet, but I find the actual license violation argument persuasive. This is an excellent example of how the AI singularity/revolution/whatever is a total distraction and that a much bigger and more serious issue is how AI is becoming so effective at turning the output of cheap/free human mental labour into capital. If AI keeps getting bette…

> " 'Hey, that's our code you used to replace us!' we will cry out too late. " Are we in the software community not the ones who have frequently told other industries we have been disrupting to "adapt or die" along with smug remarks about others acting like buggy whip makers? Time to live up to our own words ... if we can.

>Are we in the software community not the ones who

No.

I'll politely clarify that for over a decade that I - and many others - have been asking not to be lumped in with the lukewarm takes of west coast software bubble asshats. We do not live there, we do not like them, I wish they would quit pretending to speak for us.

The idea that there is anything approaching a cohesive software "community" is a con people play on themselves.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#306

Post by radmuzom »

visarga wrote: post #304
AlotOfReading wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that verbatim would be the only issue. It might produce lines that are similar, but not identical. The underlying question is whether the output is a derivative work of the training set? Sidestepping similar issues is why GCC and LLVM have compiler exemptions in their respective licenses.

If simple snippet similarity is enough to trigger the GPL copyright defense I think it goes too far. Seems like GPL has become an obstacle to invention. I learned to run away when I see it.

If that's the case then GPL code should not have been used in the training set. Open AI should have learned to run away when they saw it. The GPL is purposely designed to protect user freedom (it does not care about any special developer freedom) which is it's biggest advantage.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#307

Post by mslm »

naikrovek wrote: post #286

I don't see the point of this tool, independent of the resulting code being derivative of GPL code or not. being able to produce valid code is not the bottleneck of any developer effort. no projects fail because code can't be typed quickly enough. the bottleneck is understanding how the code works, how to design things correctly, how to make changes in accordance with the existing design, how to troubleshoot existing…

Have to fully agree; just seems like a "cool" tool where if you had to actually use it for real world projects, it's going to slow you down significantly, and you'll only admit it once the honeymoon period is over.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#308

Post by klyrs »

int_19h wrote: post #285
klyrs wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always confused when I see people talking about automated luxury communism. Whoever owns the "means of production" isn't going to obtain or develop them for free. Without some omnipotent benevolent world government to build it out for all, I just don't see it happening. It's a beautiful end goal for society, but I've never seen a remotely plausible set of intermediate steps to get there

The very concept of ownership is a social artifact, and as such, is not immutable. What does it mean for the 0.1% to own all the means of production? They can't physically possess them all. So what it means in practice is that our society recognizes the abstract notion of property ownership, distinct from physical possession or use - basically, the right to deny other people the use of that property, or allow it cond…

The problem I see is that once the pitchforks come out, society will lose decades of progress. If we're somewhat close to the techno-utopia at the start, we won't be at the end. Who's going to rebuild on the promise that the next generation won't need to work?

Revolutions aren't great at building a sense of real community; there's a good reason that "successful" communist uprisings result in totalitarian monarchies.

What it means for the 0.01% to own the means of production is that they can offer access to privilege in a hierarchical manner. The same technology required for a techno-utopia can be used to implement a techno-dystopia which favors the 0.01% and their 0.1% cronies, and treats the rest of humanity as speedbumps.

There are already fully-automated murder drones, but my dishwasher still can't load or unload itself.

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#309

Post by danny_taco »

emptyparadise wrote: post #262
function_seven wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can always get more meta. For example, the AI tool that Microsoft's lawyers use ("Co-Counsel"), will be filing the DMCA notices and subsequenct lawsuits against Co-Pilot generated code. This will result in a massive caseload for the courts, so naturally they'll turn to their AI tool ("DocketPlus Pro") to adjudicate all the cases. Only thing left is to enter these AI-generated judgements into Etherium smart contrac…

And while the machines are distracted by all that, we can get back to writing code.

Who could have predicted machines would be very good at multitasking. As of today they are STIL writing code AND creating more wealth through gold hoarding AND smart contracts at the same time!

Re: GitHub Copilot as open source code laundering?

#310

Post by quanticle »

runarberg wrote: post #220
KMnO4 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This would be the demise of the human race. I’m not entirely opposed to that, though. When AI inevitably outperforms humans on almost all tasks, who am I to say humans deserve to be given those tasks?

> When AI inevitably outperforms humans on almost all tasks Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that even possible? I kind of thought that AI is just set of fancy statistical models that requires some (preferably huge) data set in order to infer the best fit. These models can only outperform humans in scenarios where the parameters are well defined. Many (most?) tasks humans regularly perform don’t have clean and well de…

> Correct me if I’m wrong, but is that even possible?

Why should it be impossible? Arguing that it's impossible for an AI to outperform a human on almost all tasks is like arguing that it's impossible for flying machines to outperform birds.

There's nothing magical going on in our heads. It's just a set of chemical gradients and electrical signals that result in us doing or thinking particular things. Why can't we design a computer that does everything we do... only faster?

Post reply on HN