Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my testing of Copilot, the content filters only work on input , not output. Attempting to generate text from code containing "genocide" just has Copilot refuse to run. But you can still coerce Copilot to return offensive output given certain innocuous prompts.
Lol, how does that make any sense? I mean, all these word blacklists are always pretty stupid, but at least you can usually see the motivation behind them. But in this case I'm not even sure what they tried to achieve, this is absolutely pointless.
Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
611–620 of 672 posts
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#612Earlier 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.
Unlicensed code just means “all rights reserved.” You’d need to limit it to permissively licensed code and make sure you comply with their requirements.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#613Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Surely you would have to sue the people using the tool to produce verbatim copies of code, not the creator of the tool?
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#614Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#615Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Surely you would have to sue the people using the tool to produce verbatim copies of code, not the creator of the tool?
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#616Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's up to the end user to accept the suggestions.
And it's up to the end user to evaluate the tool that makes the suggestions.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#617Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#618Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've copied plenty of Microsoft sample code verbatim, because the Win32 API sucks and their samples usually get the error handling right. But, I can't think of a single scenario where I've copied something from Stack Overflow. I'm searching for the idea of how to solve a problem, and typically the relevant code given is either too short to bother copying, or it's long and absolutely not consistent with how I want to…
"Too short to bother copying"? I copy single words of text to avoid typing and typos. I would never type out even a single line of code when I could paste and edit.
Very honest suggestion: learn how to touch type. You can still copy if needed, but your typed input will be much faster.
Re: Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
#619Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your primary worry was that somebody might read that sentence and believe that the US is gassing immigrants? Seems unlikely.
You seem to think I have some political motive, I don't. I just saw a comment that from my perspective and historical education seemed to equate two things that I regard as different and said that it might be helpful to not conflate those. It seems like you did not intend to conflate them and it is a difference in what you and I read into the term "actual concentration camp". From my perspective this conversation is…
There is usually a political motive behind what controversial things are called. There was an active push from the oil lobby swap out the terms for the climate disaster from “global warming” to the more innocent sounding “climate change”. Then recently some media companies made the political decision to start using the term “climate disaster” or “climate crisis”.
> working for XCompany is actual slavery
I don’t think this is equivalent (even though it sounds like it to your ears). The ICE facilities can accurately be described as concentration camps. The victims are kept against their will—i.e. imprisoned—in camps in dedicated camps. This is an accurate term. Slavery only applies when you are forced to work for little or no salary. I.e. I often use the word actual slavery when referring to prison labor. This is a political decision on my part. And you are free to criticize this choice of word. And you would be right to say it diminishes the term when compared to the horrible cattle slavery in the Americas until the 19th century. But it is still an accurate term.