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

301–310 of 734 posts

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#301

Post by shakna »

tedunangst wrote: post #224
shakna wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, see Authors Guild v. Google. That case required that the output be transformative, in that "words in books are being used in a way they have not been used before". Copilot only fits the transformative aspect if it is not directly reciting code, that already exists in the form that it is redistributing. So long as it does so, it fails to meet the criteria.

It's not possible to get copilot to output a transformed version of the input?

Transformed output _may_ fall under fair use.

However - Copilot directly recites code. That is _very unlikely_ to fall under fair use.

Redistributing the exact same code, in the same form, for the same purpose, probably means that Copilot, and thus the people responsible for it, are infringing.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#302

Post by qayxc »

hellcow wrote: post #239
prettygood wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not copyable by people, but we can go through the code, learn from it and then use that knowledge to improve our coding skills. Isn't that what autopilot is doing here? The system is merely learning how to code, and then applying it's learnings on other programming problems. It's not like it's writing software to specifically compete with other programs.

Not when it outputs large sections of unique code verbatim, as it's been shown to do.

If it's large sections, that can be fixed by either licence attribution or result filtering.

That's at best a technical issue. What way too many people claim, however, is that the machine isn't even allowed to look at GPL'ed code for some reason, while humans are.

I'd like to learn the reasoning behind that.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#303

Post by swiley »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #130
ssivark wrote: post #64

Calling it “public” code feels like doublespeak. It’s most definitely NOT public domain code — it only happens to be hosted on GitHub and browsable ( but not copyable ) by people. “Source available for viewing” is very different from “public property” as the phrase is commonly understood: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_property

Interestingly, it is copy able... but only on GitHub ! ("forkable") That's some nasty walled garden terms... I wonder how much these kinds of ToS are actually legal ?

Pressing that "fork" button might be illegal. It's certainly illegal to push after pressing it in many cases.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#304

Post by sailingparrot »

agilob wrote: post #134

This means that also all illegally leaked codes from Apple, CDPR, Intel, NSA and Microsoft leaks are used in the models? iBoot, Witcher 3? Gwent? NSA backdoors? Does the copilot still learn from new repos? Can I post github enterprise code publicly to let it learn from it? Serious answers only please

No, it's not trained on all public code as the title suggests, it's trained on all GitHub public code (so public repos hosted on GH), none of the things you enumerate are hosted on GH.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#305

Post by johndough »

IgorPartola wrote: post #210
_Understated_ wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By comparison, Copilot is even more obviously fair use. Not sure I see it that way. If I take your hard work that you clearly marked with a GPL license and then make money from it, not quite directly, but very closely, how is that fair use? Or legal? Copying and storing a book isn't recreating another book from it. Copilot is creating new stuff from the contents of the "books" in this case. Edit: I misunderstood fa…

If you view GPL code with your browser would that mean that your browser now has to be GPL as well? In the sense that copilot is not much different than a browser for Stack Overflow with some automation, why would it need to be GPLed? Your own code on the other hand…

For sake of discussion, it would be clearer to split copilot code (not derived from GPL'd works) and the actual weights of the neural network at the heart of copilot (derived from GPL'd works via algorithmic means).

For your browser analogy, that would mean that the "browser" is the copilot code, while the weights would be some data derived from GPL'd works, perhaps a screenshot of the browser showing the code.

I'd think that the weights/screenshot in this analogy would have to abide by the GPL license. In a vacuum, I would not think that the copilot code had to be licensed under GPL, but it might be different in this case since the copilot code is necessary to make use of the weights.

But then again, the weights are sitting on some server, so GPL might not apply anyway. Not sure about AGPL and other licenses though. There is likely some illegal incompatibility between licenses in there.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#306

Post by sangnoir »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #184
cool_dude85 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did copilot spring from the aether? Or was it built and trained on licensed code by github? Someone did something.

It's not a violation of copyright to train a model. There are three questions at play though: 1) Can you be liable for violating copyright if you have never seen the work? 2) Can a non-human be held accountable for violating copyright? 3) Can github be held liable for an end user using their tool to violate copyright? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity wikipedia states: Generally, copying cannot be…

> It's not a violation of copyright to train a model.

This is a very bold assumption, one that I assume will not hold in the court of law in all cases. I think the nuanced question is: to train a model that does what, exactly.

Let's say distributing meth recipes is illegal[1], can one legally side-step that by training a model that spits out the meth recipe instead? No court will bother with the distinction, causation is well-trod ground.

1. As an example - not sure if its illegal. You may replace with classified nuclear weapon schematics if you like.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#307

Post by fchu »

If a company built a tool like Copilot to help students write essays, is that considered plagiarism? Probably yes, and the reason is that regurgitating blobs of text without actually thinking like a human and writing them anew doesn't feel like actual work, just direct re-use.

Same thinking probably applies to GitHub Copilot and copyright

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#308

Post by b3morales »

belorn wrote: post #54
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.

The boundaries are not set in stone, and so the answer is the old theme of "it depend". To provide a slightly different situation which was discussed a few years ago, can you train an AI on pictures of human faces without getting permission? Human painters have created images of faces for a very long time, so is it any different in terms of law and/ethics if an AI do it? Yes, a bit? It depend. Using such things for a…

My opinion would be that if the training set for the face generator was made up of photos whose creators had asked you to credit them if you re-used their work, then, yes, the generator is ethically in the wrong if it's skipping that attribution. Regardless of copyright. (And I feel the same way about Copilot.)

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#309

Post by qayxc »

mehdix wrote: post #170

GitHub's Copilot looks like a "code laundering" machine to me.

Why and how? I'm honestly interested in an answer here.

What exactly is the difference between a machine learning patterns and techniques from looking at code and people doing it?

Is every programer who ever gazed at GPL'ed code guilty of plagiarism and licensing violations because everything they write has to be considered derivative work now?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#310

Post by rgbrenner »

_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…

"I'm guessing the prevailing theory (from GiitHub anyway) is that I'm legitimately allowed to do this."

No. Copilot is a technical preview. In the final release, if it reproduces code verbatim, it'll tell you and present the correct license.

Post reply on HN