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

Copilot sells code other people wrote

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 838 posts

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#671

Post by ntoskrnl »

TAForObvReasons wrote: post #626
jazzyjackson wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as a mind experiment: couldn't CoPilot just publish a list of every github user and attribute the work to all of them?

CoPilot is a black box at the moment. Microsoft claims they used the public corpus on GitHub. There are plenty of GPL, AGPL, and "source available" projects in the public corpus. So what exactly is the licensing? The argument may make sense if they limited themselves to public-domain (CC0) works, but that is not what happened here. If CoPilot attributed something to an AGPL project, does it mean the "virality" applie…

There's also a good amount of commercial and leaked source code on GitHub, including MS's own leaked Windows XP source. I haven't played around with Copilot yet, but if I ever do I plan on copy/pasting some win32 API definitions to see if I can get it to spit out any of the leaked source.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#673

Post by icoder »

JacobiX wrote: post #29

It’s the same problem with those ML models, the other day someone generated a children’s book using GPT3, turned out that there is a real children's book with the same name and a very similar content: The Very Lonely Firefly by Eric Carle.

Interesting, it's a big question I've had for a while, how 'original' stuff coming from these AI systems is, and also the distribution of uniqueness over many answers. I haven't dived into it yet, but I find it surprising how little this comes up when these systems are discussed (ie here on HN).

Does anyone even know? Can we even check? What if 1 in a thousand, or one in a million outputs is (very close to) something existing? I find this especially relevant when generating faces.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#674

Post by futureshock »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

In this thread: many engineers nervously sweating. The moats are drying up and the wizards are about to be thrown out of the castle. This tech is the first product in a long line of products that will massively lower the barrier to entry. It has been a good run, but it was never going to last forever. We are not part of the capitalist class and were never going to be.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#675

Post by typetheorist »

igneo676 wrote: post #647
jaywalk wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your code is using a license that allows it, how could you possibly opt-out aside from using a different license?

I'm not sure using a different license actually opts you out. By merely hosting your code on GitHub you grant them the right to analyze your code on their servers[1] They may be morally in the wrong, but I'm unsure they are legally in the wrong here. To boot, denying them the right to create this tool in your license is technically a violation of OSS principles and problematic [1]: https://docs.github.com/en/site-pol…

> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.

Wouldn't this be a violation?

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#677

Post by pen2l »

Bit of a stretch to fashion AI-derived/AI-coauthored works as other people's work. Are DALL-E portraits done Picasso-style unrightfully selling Picasso's works? Is an individual selling portraits done Picasso-style unrightfully selling Picasso's works?

No, of course not. Joyce's literature was influenced by Ibsen, Mozart looked up to Haydn, Newton was humble enough that he openly professed he stood on the shoulders of his predecessors, Perelman refused the Millennium prize because it wasn't also offered to his colleague Hamilton.

All human innovation is iterative, and derivative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcvd5JZkUXY

Our skill doesn't grow in vacuums, without outside mentorship and guidance. There are areas where I am upset about the application of AI, but this is not one of them. Consider copilot a gentle guiding hand for those without access to a second pair of eyes nearby to give you reminders on what you may otherwise have on the tip of your tongue.

But in the way that Led Zeppelin refused to recognize how heavily their music was influenced by delta blues artist was unbecoming, I can accept the argument that it is perhaps douchey of Github to sit on Copilot as squarely their creation.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#678

Post by Guid_NewGuid »

monocasa wrote: post #630
Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #569

I find this whole topic very annoying, this is like the 3rd variation to reach the front page today. But it has made me realize why I instinctively dislike Free Software as a movement. Copyright and licensing are bad, actually. Stop getting worked up about the idea of using courts to punish theft. Stop getting into a frenzy of arousal about the police kicking down doors to drag Billy Gates to jail because 80 characte…

The issue is that whether the free software people want it or not, the copyright system over code exists, and historically has been used as a cudgel against smaller players. If we got rid of copyright over code entirely I'd totally be down for this. And IIRC RMS has said the same thing; that he'd be in favor of the removal of copyright over code as a concept even if it meant neutering the protections of the GPL. Unti…

Interesting that he's said that, I wasn't aware.

I think at its root the problem is copyleft is a mirror image of copyright. It relies on and replicates all the cultural and legal requirements and constraints of the copyright model and curtails an imagining of other possibilities. Every sentence or thought spent on copyleft is misdirected in my view.

Which is why I find Microsoft doing this (potential) en-masse license violation and then a bunch of GPL folks getting mad pretty funny overall. I just find the high and mighty tone annoying, like sure, they've (allegedly) screwed you, but they're going to (theoretically) get away with it because they're rich and powerful, sorry that didn't turn out how you wanted.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#679

Post by ozim »

Guid_NewGuid wrote: post #584
sirsinsalot wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A commons of knowledge is a public good." Yes but this copilot model takes that, adds value and doesn't itself join the public common good. Instead it takes it, and makes you pay to have it back in another form. If copilot were open source and the model released for the public good, being built of public data (in your scenario) we would have a very different conversation.

Yes they haven't paid it forward, or back, but why fight on the occupier's territory. By calling for legal frameworks to enforce this we accept the language and terms of the dominant party. By using courts and the law and creating new law for copyright we actually move further from the goal of abolishing copyright and IP entirely. Every time we use courts to enforce IP we're strengthening the Walt Disneys and Nintend…

Funny thing is ALL these legal frameworks are there to protect these 3 people like you.

If there would be no enforcement of IP/licensing or legal enforcement - M$, Google etc. would not be nice - they would just come over and kick your doors cut your head off because they could do so. With legal framework they at least have to ask someone else.

You just have to understand you don't stand a chance with your 3 buddies against 10 motivated attackers.

Writing about "accepting terms of dominant party" you clearly never had a robbery at your house - imagine now corporations doing the same when there would be no legal frameworks.

Read up on Dutch East India Company - or just Nestle - Microsoft or Google are still quite nice companies with Walt Disney and Nintendo.

Re: Copilot sells code other people wrote

#680

Post by pronik »

stavros wrote: post #545
pronik wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are responsible for your tool use. That's the same discussion as with whether uTorrent is responsible for your torrenting copyrighted stuff or with Tesla's auto-pilot. You buy the tool, you are responsible for what you create with the tool.

Napster was liable for copyright infringement.

True, however, the users have been liable too. If my company gets sued because I used Copilot, it won't matter that much that the plaintiff also sued GitHub/Microsoft.
Post reply on HN