551–560 of 824 posts
A better shortening if the original title is simple "We’ve filed a lawsuit challenging GitHub Copilot"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you, buy what if you share 1% of a copyright binary file that is completely useless when shared partially, is that infringement?
“Any reproduction in part or as a whole…”
Copyright laws, if enforced perfectly, would make programming simply impossible. We've been skating by on people not really enforcing them, despite the laws still being on the books, and the existence of tools like this makes that not a viable strategy. Today it's Copilot, which can be shut down, but tomorrow it'll be something developers can run at home. Bits don't have colour; there's no way to distinguish between a copy happening by independent recreation, and one that's actually a copy. So we'll need proper rulings.
In fact, considering Fauxpilot, that will happen as soon as the models have improved somewhat.
*: Of course I don't think "independent recreation" is really a thing. Humans are excellent at open source laundering. It's called "learning".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe researchers that are used to hunting for publications and attributions. If I’m sharing my code publicly, it’s because I want it to be _used_.
People share proprietary code publicly. And the fact that you're allowed to read a book doesn't (currently) give you the right to copy it and redistribute the copy.
I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but: *Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me. And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used fo…
Is it patent trolling when you are defending your future labor from being made obsolete by megacorps and signularitarians using your past labor without permission?
No, it's justice.
I really don't understand how there can be a problem with how Copilot works. Any human just works in the same way. A human is trained on lots and lots of of copyrighted material. Still, what a human produces in the end is not automatically derived work from all the human has seen in his life before. So, why should an AI be treated different here? I don't understand the argument for this. I actually see quite some dan…
Because the AI is not a human and only humans have rights, including the right to learn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The core argument I've seen is that the output is sufficiently transformative and not straight up copying. An argument that isn't made about any other type of algorithm.
Suppose you own the rights to a jpeg. And I apply a simple algorithm that increments every hex value. So 00 becomes 01 and so on. The gibberish images it spits out would be so different then your original image that you wouldn't have any claim to them at all.
Or maybe it would be enough to just zip your image, to be allowed to distribute it? In the end the bytes I would distribute than "would be so different then your original image that you wouldn't have any claim to them at all", right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you are actually giving people is a set of chords that happen to show up in your song, the machine can suggest an appropriate next chord. It’s also smart enough to rebuild your song from the chords _if you ask it to_.
I take your code and I compress it in a tar.gz file. Il call that file "the model". Then I ask an algorithm (Gzip) to infer some code using "the model". The algorithm (gzip) just learned how to code by reading your code. It just happened to have it memorized in its model.
I’ve seen this point made before, but it assumes you use the entire input as output, which is silly.
I am sorry for not bringing any kind of legal perspective here, but: *Jesus Christ*, I hope I live long enough to see copyright die. Here we are at the cusp of a new paradigm of commanding computers to do stuff for us, right at the beginning of the first AI development which actually impresses me. And we are fucking bickering about how we were cheated out of $0.00034 because our repo from 2015 might have been used fo…
The entire response to this suit on this site is mind-blowing to me. Everyone is up in arms that someone trained an AI model that could potentially spit out tiny, twisted fragments of public, open-source code. This response is nothing but selfish behavior that runs counter to the core principles of open source development and the free software movement.