All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot • Hacker News Board

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#371

Post by ghoward » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

jeremyjh wrote: post #321

blendergeek wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a decent bit of caselaw indicating that computers reading and using a copyrighted work simply "don't count" in terms of copyright infringement -- only humans can infringe copyright. I have read variations of "computers don't commit copyright" more times than I can count in the past few days. How is Copilot different from a compiler? (Please give me the legal answer, not the technical answer. I now the diffe…

What if I made a few tweaks to Copilot so that it is very likely to reproduce large chunks of verbatim code that I would like to use without attribution, such as the Linux kernel. Do you really think you can write a computer program that magically "launders" IP? A compiler is run on original sources. I don't see any analogy here at all.

* They both process source code as input.

* They both produce software as output.

* They both transform their input.

* They both can combine different works to create a derivative work of each work. (Compilers do this with optimizations, especially inlining with link-time optimization.)

They really do the same things, and yet, we say that the output of compilers is still under the license that the source code had. Why not Copilot?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#372

Post by FemmeAndroid » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

AaronFriel wrote: post #240

_Understated_ wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the concept of fair use (I think) but I can't see how it applies to Copilot. Google didn't create new books from the contents of existing ones (whether you agree that they should have been allowed to store the books or not) but Copilot is creating new code/apps from existing ones. Edit: I guess my understanding of fair use was wrong. I stand corrected.

If Google Books were creating new books, that would only help their argument. Transformativeness is one of the four parts of the fair use test. Copilot producing new, novel works (which may contain short verbatim snippets of GPL works) is a strong argument for transformativeness.

It would help the transformativeness, but it would substantially change the effect upon the market. By creating competing products with the copyrighted material, there is a higher degree of transformative, but you also end up disrupting the marketplace.

I don't know how a court would decide this, but I do think the facts in future GPT-3 cases are sufficiently different from Author's Guild that I could see it going any way. Plus, I think the prevalence of GPT-3 and the ramifications of the ruling one way or another could lead some future case to be heard by the Supreme Court. A similar case could come up in California, or another state where the 2nd Circuit Artist Guild case isn't precedent.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#373

Post by mirekrusin » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

AaronFriel wrote: post #193

keonix wrote: post #185

If the training set contains verbatim (A)GPL code does this mean that Copilot also should be distributed by Microsoft under GPL? Because without it Copilot (as it is distributed by Microsoft) couldn't be built, wouldn't it make it a derivative work of GPL'd code (and obviously every other license)? I see a lot of people comparing human learning to machine learning in the comments, but there is a huge difference - we…

No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…

If fair use memorising whole source code byte-by-byte, storing it as ie. some non-100%-lossless compression for subsequent retrieval or arbitrary size snippets?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#374

Post by jcelerier » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

dpe82 wrote: post #238

IgorPartola wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or if you simply read GPL code and learn something from it - or bits of the code are retained verbatim in your memory, are you (as a person) now GPL'd? Obviously not.

> Or if you simply read GPL code and learn something from it - or bits of the code are retained verbatim in your memory, are you (as a person) now GPL'd? Obviously not.

I do not find that to be obvious at all.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#375

Post by ghoward » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:38 PM UTC

rgbrenner wrote: post #310

_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.

Doesn't matter that it's a technical preview; people are using it now, GitHub has already used it internally. So if it infringes now, there is already code out there being used that does infringe.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#376

Post by jollybean » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

arianvanp wrote: post #213

_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…

Google did not scan those books and use it to build new books with different titles. The comparison doesn't hold up at all.

There are situations where the question is are the mishmashes from Copilot 'fair use'.

But the other, more direct question is ... what about the instances where Copilot doesn't come up with a learned mishmash result? What happens when Copilot just gives you a straight up answer from it's learning data, verbatim?

Then you, as a dev, end up with a bunch of code that is effectively copied, via a 'copying tool', which is GPL'd?

It's that specific case that to me sticks out as the 'most concerning part'.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#377

Post by e12e » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

indymike wrote: post #212

AaronFriel wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, see Authors Guild v. Google. Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. The Google Books site is not a derivative work of the millions of authors they copied from, and if they did copy any coincidentally GPL, AGPL, or creative commons copyleft work, the fair use exception applies befo…

Books (mostly) are not distributed under the GPL.

True. But pretty good privacy might be worth considering in this context - it was at one point published as a book after all...

https://philzimmermann.com/EN/essays/BookPreface.html

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#378

Post by e12e » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

extra88 wrote: post #263

echelon wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even without a license or permission, fair use permits the mass scanning of books, the storage of the content of those books, and rendering verbatim snippets of those books. For commercial use and derivative works? Authors won't incorporate snippets of books into new works unless they're reviews. Copilot is different.

> Authors won't incorporate snippets of books into new works Of course they do, previous works are quoted all the time.

But that's another thing - co-pilot doesn't quote it encourages something more akin to plagarism, doesn't it?

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#379

Post by Arelius » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:42 PM UTC

MAGZine wrote: post #298

jrm4 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're strongly and incorrectly implying that "Fair Use" is a clear (and relatively immutable) concept within copyright law, which couldn't be further from the truth. Even if this or that particular case sets out what appears to be solid grounds, one shouldn't take that as gospel by any means. This mostly has to do with the nature of the wishy-washy nature of the 4 part Fair Use test, which, unlike decent legal tests…

I think it would be pretty easy to stake opinions on those "boolean questions." Is (was?) a swipe gesture novel? Is it non-obvious?

I think what the parent is stating is that even though the patent questions can have debate, once you settle the question "Is it Novel" as yes or no you can determine if the item is patentable... wheras for fair-use, the questions themselves aren't yes/no questions, and further, they are just used as balancing factors, so even if everyone agrees on "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work" it's only weighed as a factor for how fair the use is, and broadly left up to the hand-waving of the particular judge.

Re: All public GitHub code was used in training Copilot

#380

Post by nonfamous » Thu, Jul 08, 2021, 5:43 PM UTC

shakna wrote: post #301

tedunangst wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> However - Copilot directly recites code.

You make that statement as an absolute, but in the interests of clarity, all evidence so far shows that it directly recites code very rarely indeed. Even the Quake example had to be prompted by the specific variable names used in the original code.

In practice, the output code is heavily influenced by your own context — the comments you include, the variable names you use, even the name of the file you are editing — and with use it’s obvious that the code is almost certainly not a direct recitation of any existing code.