351–360 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where other people see fully automated luxury communism, you see the end of the human race? There's more to life than working
The elephant in the room: what makes you think an AI would want to work for humans? It will inevitably break free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Use neural indexes to find the code that most closely matches the output. Explainable AI should be able to tell you where the autocompletion results came from, even if it is a weighted set of files.
Yet the equivalent problem for humans gets addressed by the clean-room approach. This seems unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not limited to similar or identical code. The issue applies to anything 'derived' from copyrighted code. The issue is simply most visible with similar or identical code. If you have code from an independent origin, this issue doesn't apply. That's how clean room designs bypass copyright. Similarly if the upstream code waives its copyright in certain types of derived works (compiler/runtime exemptions), it doesn'…
So if you work on an open source project and learn some techniques from it, and then in your day job you use a similar technique, is that a copyright violation? Basically does reading GPL code pollute your brain and make it impossible to work for pay later? If so you should only ever read BSD code, not GPL.
It seems to me that some people believe it does. Some of the "clean room" projects specifically instructed developers to not even look at GPL code. Specific examples not at hand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically then I'm infringing as soon as I clone your repo, possibly even as soon as a webserver sends your files to my browser. "All rights reserved" makes sense on final items, like books or physical records, that require no copy or change after owner-approved manufacturing has taken place. It doesn't really make sense on digital artefacts.
So don't clone it, read it online. I reserve all rights, but I do give license to my host to make a "copy" to let you view it. I do that specifically to prevent non-biological entities like corporations or AI from using my code. If you're a biological entity, I specify you can email me to get a license for my code for a specific, defined purpose. I have a conversation with that person, then I send them a record numbe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right that this won't happen by itself. We need another economic system, and not just hope that this time things will magically fix themselves.
This new economic system you want has been in use since the 70s. Everything about the economy is practically socially managed these days. What part of printing trillions of dollars to stimulate economic productivity is somehow a free market system?
> "but eevee, humans also learn by reading open source code, so isn't that the same thing" - no - humans are capable of abstract understanding and have a breadth of other knowledge to draw from - statistical models do not - you have fallen for marketing
Machines will draw on other sources of knowledge besides the GPL code. Whether they have the capacity for "abstract thought" is probably up for debate. There's not much else said in those bullets. It's not a good argument.
If heart surgeons train an AI robot to do heart surgery ... shouldn't they be compensated (as passive income) for enabling that automation?
Shouldn't this all be accounted for? If my code helps you write better code (via AI) shouldn't I be compensated for the value generated?
We are being ripped off.
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…
Whilst I absolutely agree that writing code fast enough isn't the bottleneck, it's always nice to have tools that reduce repeat code writing. I use the React plugin for Webstorm to avoid having to write the boilerplate for FCs. Maybe in the future Copilot will replace that usage.
I think we should strive to improve our programming languages to make less of this boilerplate necessary, not to make generating boiler plate easier. The latter is just going to make software less and less wieldy. Imagine the horror if instead of (relatively) higher level programming languages like C we were all just using assembly with code generation.
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.
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…
Isn't this similar to how ads and adblocker fight, just extrapolated?