331–340 of 806 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what proprietary code? the guy on Twitter is seeing his own GPL code bring reproduced. nothing proprietary there. do you have the "don't reproduce code verbatim" preference set?
The code is not GPL but is copyrighted in his name.
But that doesn't make it any better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's totally AI, in the "legal responsibility laundering" sense. This is the main present day use case for saying "AI".
Yeah you can just throw some "AI" into the code and suddenly people are okay with it stealing licensed code. I really thought technically inclined people would be resistant to this type of manipulation from advertisers but it seems like most people are totally going for it!
I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI. For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged b…
Nonetheless that’s problematic for folks relying on the copyright as of now.
I feel for artists here, devs won’t go hungry or jobless.
Howdy, folks. Ryan here from the GitHub Copilot product team. I don’t know how the original poster’s machine was set-up, but I’m gonna throw out a few theories about what could be happening. If similar code is open in your VS Code project, Copilot can draw context from those adjacent files. This can make it appear that the public model was trained on your private code, when in fact the context is drawn from local fil…
Copilot training data should have been sanitized better.
In addition: any code that is produced by copilot that uses a source that is licensed, MUST follow the practices of that license, including copyright headers.
Howdy, folks. Ryan here from the GitHub Copilot product team. I don’t know how the original poster’s machine was set-up, but I’m gonna throw out a few theories about what could be happening. If similar code is open in your VS Code project, Copilot can draw context from those adjacent files. This can make it appear that the public model was trained on your private code, when in fact the context is drawn from local fil…
Howdy, folks. Ryan here from the GitHub Copilot product team. I don’t know how the original poster’s machine was set-up, but I’m gonna throw out a few theories about what could be happening. If similar code is open in your VS Code project, Copilot can draw context from those adjacent files. This can make it appear that the public model was trained on your private code, when in fact the context is drawn from local fil…
Your response is much appreciated. The dust will settle eventually, it seems distrust is the de facto way which people interpret new technologies.
Well, here's a question. Is GitHub violating the LGPL by including the code in their copilot data? Or is it Copilot users who end up using the regurgitated code? I guess GitHub is violating it the instant their servers send verbatim snippets like this to developers without the copyright notice. And then the Copilot users are also violating it when (if) they release their code that contains verbatim snippets and no no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is more like a wealthy person stealing your entire art catalog, laundering it in some fancy way, and then claiming they are the original creator. If I take a song, cut it up, and sing over it, my release is valid. If I parody your work, that's my work. If you paint a picture of a building and I go to that spot and take a photograph of that building it is my work. I can derive all sorts of things, things that I…
Fair use is an affirmative defense. Others can still sue you for copying, and you will have to hope a judge agrees with your defense. How do you think Google v. Oracle would have turned out if Google's defense was "no your honor, we didn't copy the Java sources. We just used those sources as input to our creative algorithms, and this is what they independently produced"? If I take a song, cut it up, and sing over it,…
Until there are a large amount of court cases, the burden of proof is on you to say that this is copyright infringement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Those are effectively cases of cryptomnesia[0]. Part and parcel of learning. If you don't want broad access your work, don't upload it to a public repository. It's very simple. Good on you for recognising that you don't agree with what GitHub looks at data in public repos, but it's not their problem. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptomnesia
> Those are effectively cases of cryptomnesia. Disagree, outputting training data as-is is not cryptomnesia. This is not Copilot's first case. It also reproduced ID software's fast inverse square root function as-is, including its comments, but without its license. > If you don't want broad access your work, don't upload it to a public repository. It's very simple. This is actually both funny and absurd. This is why…
That sounds like a you problem, not a us problem.
As of yet, no court has said that any of this is illegal.
So tough luck. Go take it to the supreme court if you disagree, because right now it actually seems like people can do almost whatever they want with these AI tools.
Your objection simply doesn't matter, until there is a court case that supports you. You can't do anything about it, if that doesn't happen.