601–610 of 672 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well... the whole training set is licensed, so you can't really get rid of it. I think that the technology they are using for this is just not ready.
Just retrain the model using properly licensed code? ("just" is doing a ton of heavy lifting, but let's be real, that's not impossibly hard)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adding to this: I run product security for a large enterprise, and I've already gotten the ball rolling on prohibiting copilot for all the reasons above. It's too big a risk. I'd be shocked if GitHub could remedy the negative impressions minted in the last day or so. Even with other compensating controls around open source management, this flies right under the radar with a c130's worth of adverse consequences.
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.
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…
Stack Overflow and Copilot are similar. Usage of both routinely violates licenses. Stack Overflow content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Terms [1]: * Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. * ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or buil…
One can now trivially coerce copilot to regurgitate copyrighted content without attribution. Copilot's basic premise violates the CC-BY-SA terms, and this will continue until no party can demonstrate a viable method of extracting copyrighted code.
There is now a single party backed by a company with a 2 Trillion dollar market cap that can be sued for flagrant copyright violations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It just seems bizarre that this wasn’t flagged internally at Microsoft. They have tons of compliance staff.
That's because Microaoft doesn't dare use this for production code (presumably). They are 100% okay with letting their competitors get into legal hot water.
This is pretty clearly just a search engine with more parameters. I thought there was something more going on with copilot, but the fact that it is regurgitating arbitrary code comments tells me that there is zero semantic analysis going on with the actual code being pulled in.
They openly claim it is an AI. What about the state of AI currently in use made you think that there was any intelligence behind it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe the concept is to stop users from prompting the AI to generate offensive stuff specifically, and then publishing the so-generated stream of offensive stuff as negative PR for GitHub, in the same way the generated stream of offensive stuff coming from Microsoft’s AI was a big PR disaster.
I suppose you’re referring to the AI Twitter bot that initially was very lovely and within a day 4chan had turned into a nazi. That was both very naive and hilarious. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/artificial-intelligence/... The big difference in this case, however, is that this AI was constantly learning based on user input, however, which I do not think is the case for Copilot.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/about-github-copil...
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Stack Overflow and Copilot are similar. Usage of both routinely violates licenses. Stack Overflow content is licensed under CC-BY-SA. Terms [1]: * Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. * ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or buil…
The difference here is that it's hard to sue a company for sporadic, difficult to track down usages of SO content written by their own engineers. One can now trivially coerce copilot to regurgitate copyrighted content without attribution. Copilot's basic premise violates the CC-BY-SA terms, and this will continue until no party can demonstrate a viable method of extracting copyrighted code. There is now a single part…