501–510 of 672 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they get rid of licensed stuff it should be ok no? I really want to use this and seems inevitable that we'll need it just as google translate needs all of the books + sites + comments it can get a hold of.
How would they do that?
From the Copilot FAQ: > The technical preview includes filters to block offensive words And somehow their filters missed f*k? That doesn’t give a lot of confidence in their ability filter more nuanced text. Or maybe it only filters truly terrible offensive words like “master”.
Quoted post unavailable.
Github changing master->main was the epitome of virtue signaling. This literally does not affect black people at all, nor does it do -anything- to help with racial inequality in the US. It's actually quite patronizing and tone-deaf to think that instead of all the things -Microsoft- could be doing to help racial inequality, they're putting in as little effort as possible.
Congrats on granting power over words to unreasonable people who ignore things like context in language and common sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you also block stack overflow and give guidance to never copy code from that website or elsewhere on the Internet? I'm legitimately curious - my org internally officially denounces the copying of stack overflow snippets. Thankfully for my role it's moot as I mostly work with an internal non-public language, for better or worse, and I have no idea how well that's followed elsewhere in the wider company.
Apples and oranges: Stack overflow snippets are explicitly granted under a permissive license, as long as you attribute. https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing It appears that the code that copilot is using is created under a huge variety of licenses, making it risky. On the other hand, a small snippet in a function that is derived from many existing pieces of other code may fall under fair use, even if it is not u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Pretty sure they were being sarcastic. I also don't find your arguments persuasive in the slightest, and I find myself being skeptical of these recent moral outcries. I'm skeptical of its sincerity, and I don't buy it. "Master" has an etmylogical background far more diverse than the dichotomy to "slave". I can wholeheartedly say that I've not once thought to make that association. It's been a title for centuries. Mas…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apples and oranges: Stack overflow snippets are explicitly granted under a permissive license, as long as you attribute. https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing It appears that the code that copilot is using is created under a huge variety of licenses, making it risky. On the other hand, a small snippet in a function that is derived from many existing pieces of other code may fall under fair use, even if it is not u…
Except that CC-BY-SA is not a permissive license; the SA part is a form of copyleft. It's just that nobody enforces it. From the text [1]: - "[I]f You Share Adapted Material You produce [..] The Adapter’s License You apply must be a Creative Commons license with the same License Elements, this version or later, or a BY-SA Compatible License." - "Adapted Material means material [..] that is derived from or based upon…
What makes it even worse is if you try to do the right thing by crediting SO (the BY part) you’re putting a red flag in the code that you should have known you have to share your code (the SA part).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
Everyone has a line of how much they are willing to change their language, though. There will always come a point where someone will think some change is "silly", even though the old term may have upset some people. And almost every term has some sort of baggage associated with it. There was a post going around somewhere of a college's earnest attempt and change some language (like avoiding "give it a shot" because o…
Words having multiple usages is not really a novel concept. If we ban words based on them potentially being offensive, we'll end up with no words at all as people move onto using different words, and so forth.
It is not silly to have pushback when someone wants to grant themselves power over language usage. Dropping usage of a word should have a strong, tenable argument and larger community support than 0.00000001% of people caring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nat Friedman explicitly stated that it shouldn't regurgitate [0]: > It shouldn't do that, and we are taking steps to avoid reciting training data in the output He's being woefully naive. To put it bluntly, we don't know how to build a neural network that isn't capable of spitting out training data. The techniques he pointed to in other threads are academic experiments, and nobody seems to have a credible explanation…
"Shouldn't" isn't the same as "doesn't". I'm not anything close to an ML expert, and I have no opinion on whether what they're aiming for is possible, but this document^[1] (linked in your linked comment) states explicitly that they are aware of the recitation issue and are taking steps to mitigate it. So, in the context of the comment I replied to, I think Github is very far from claiming that recitation is "simply…
It's like if some corporate PR department told you "we're aware of the halting problem, and are taking steps to mitigate it." You would rightly laugh them out of the room.
It's not going to work, and the people making these statements either don't understand how much they don't understand, or are deluding themselves, or are actively lying to us.
An honest answer would be something like "We are aware that this is a problem, and solving it is an active area of research for us, and for the machine learning community at large. While we believe that we will eventually be able to mitigate the problem to an acceptable degree, it is not yet known whether this category of problem can be fully solved."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Changing master to main was something Github did when they were taking heat for their contract with ICE. It was a nice bit of misdirection that cost them nothing, achieved nothing and garnered praise in some quarters. ICE, of course, runs an actual concentration camp which has a slightly more troublesome history than the word master. Language policing is to racism what recycling is to global warming - an attempt to s…
y'know it really seems like both purpose and outcome need to be closely examined here, if we're going to be emphasizing actual next to concentration camps. what's the paradigm of a concentration camp? if we go straight for Auschwitz we'll get nowhere, how about the Boer concentration camps? Origin of the term after all. What was the purpose? To concentrate the Boer population during a total war against them, so they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Nazis ran what would more accurately be termed extermination camps. Though what they did certainly bore a strong resemblance to the Boer war concentration camps/manzanar,etc. whose purpose was to "concentrate" people into one place rather than industrially slaughter them.
I don't know if I've ever heard anyone use the term "concentration camp" without qualifiers to refer to anything else than the nazi concentration camps (or something equivalent). Maybe it's just me, but I think it would have been more clear if you said internment camp if your intent was to refer to the broader context and not invoke a comparison to nazis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment
Where it also makes the point that the nazi camps were primarily extermination camps.
Maybe take it up with them and get back to me if you feel truly passionate about this issue.
>Maybe it's just me, but I think it would have been more clear
Gosh, it's awfully ironic that this sentence would happen in a thread about how language policing is used as a distraction from important issues.
Is it more important to you how people use the term concentration camp or the fact that ICE lock up children in internment/concentration/[ insert favorite word here ] camps?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apples and oranges: Stack overflow snippets are explicitly granted under a permissive license, as long as you attribute. https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing It appears that the code that copilot is using is created under a huge variety of licenses, making it risky. On the other hand, a small snippet in a function that is derived from many existing pieces of other code may fall under fair use, even if it is not u…
It just seems bizarre that this wasn’t flagged internally at Microsoft. They have tons of compliance staff.
They are 100% okay with letting their competitors get into legal hot water.