Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replit's in-browser coding AI

replit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#61

Post by krono »

googlryas wrote: post #29
krono wrote: post #15

> trained on publicly available code Fully respecting the licenses this code was published under, one would hope?

What do source code licenses say about using source code as training data? IANAL, I would imagine it's only relevant if the model spits out already existing licensed code, and that using the code as training data is largely irrelevant. For a simpler example than code-generating ML, if I write a program to recognize a directory of source code vs non-source code, and my logic is if (unbalanced parenthesis count in all…

We're talking large scale commercial repurposing of source code with worldwide redistribution here. Not some project you whipped up in 5 minutes to learn from, or automate some minor annoying task.

Unlicensed source code - the default - is still protected by copyright law. If it's hosted and served from a different jurisdiction where no exception exists for training data models.

Then there are also licenses that explicitly prohibit commercial usage to consider.

What it comes down to, as it always does, is that a small group of (practically) untouchable people are making money by abusing and thereby irreparably damaging the trust and good will of the collective.

It's a complex topic eh

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#62

Post by mtlynch »

m00x wrote: post #56
maep wrote: post #26

If this tool was trained on open source code, what license does the generated code have? At least with Codepilot people were able to generate verbatim GPL code with typos and everything. More importantly, I wonder if companies behind these type of tools offer legal or financial protections in case GPL code sneaks in and leads to expensive law suits.

If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

>It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

Do you have a source for that?

This SF Conservancy article[0] says that's not true:

>Consider GitHub’s claim that “training ML systems on public data is fair use”. We have not found any case of note — at least in the USA — that truly contemplates that question.

The first major court case I know about is the class-action case Matthew Butterick is trying to build.[1]

[0] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-co...

[1] https://githubcopilotinvestigation.com/

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#63

Post by Barrin92 »

m00x wrote: post #56
maep wrote: post #26

If this tool was trained on open source code, what license does the generated code have? At least with Codepilot people were able to generate verbatim GPL code with typos and everything. More importantly, I wonder if companies behind these type of tools offer legal or financial protections in case GPL code sneaks in and leads to expensive law suits.

If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

astonishingly enough every sentence in this post is untrue. There's been no court case on any of the models in question here. They don't work like human brains, nor understand anything they output. Even if they did of course that output would still be subject to licenses, given that human code is subject to them, which is why those licenses exist in the first place.

If you ever plan to steal someone's code and justify it with "my brain is able to learn, therefore copyright doesn't exist" I warn you right now this will not fly.

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#65

Post by krono »

m00x wrote: post #56
maep wrote: post #26

If this tool was trained on open source code, what license does the generated code have? At least with Codepilot people were able to generate verbatim GPL code with typos and everything. More importantly, I wonder if companies behind these type of tools offer legal or financial protections in case GPL code sneaks in and leads to expensive law suits.

If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

US Court rulings do not automatically apply worldwide, and not everything it would apply to exists within its jurisdiction.

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#66

Post by swyx »

giansegato wrote: post #2

replit employee here. the team who built this is very small (less than a dozen, including non-eng roles for the go to market), and went from idea to general availability in 8 weeks

very cool :)

can i get a clarification - when it says "in-browser" i hear "on-device" as in it doesnt call back to replit to get the predictions. i assume that's inaccurate?

for cost/compute purposes i'm wondering how small models have to get in order to run "truly in browser"

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#68

Post by mr_toad »

m00x wrote: post #56
maep wrote: post #26

If this tool was trained on open source code, what license does the generated code have? At least with Codepilot people were able to generate verbatim GPL code with typos and everything. More importantly, I wonder if companies behind these type of tools offer legal or financial protections in case GPL code sneaks in and leads to expensive law suits.

If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

> If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses?

If the “new” code is close enough to be considered a derived work then you will need a license.

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#69

Post by _whiteCaps_ »

aryamaan wrote: post #35

I was on beta list used this for golang. It blew my mind half of the times. It was like it knew what I was going to do. The other times it was dumber than the standard auto complete. It doesn't have any awareness of already defined variables and doesn't use them to complete halfwritten variables. Hope this gets better soon.

Have you tried Copilot? That seemed to work very well for me.

Re: Replit's in-browser coding AI

#70

Post by MuffinFlavored »

mr_toad wrote: post #68
m00x wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.

> If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses? If the “new” code is close enough to be considered a derived work then you will need a license.

> If the “new” code is close enough to be considered a derived work then you will need a license.

And how is that determined... in court at trial? By an unbiased 3rd party competent enough to understand both codebases?

Post reply on HN