691–700 of 824 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you explain what damages you incur from Copilot?
People not following your license ? And not making their derived works under the same license like I require?
Learning off code isn't the same as using the code as-is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read most of the complaint. The only examples of supposed copyright infringement are isEven and isPrime functions. Here's what Copilot gives me in a Typescript file: function isPrime(n: number): boolean { for (let i = 2; i 1; } function isEven(n: number): boolean { return n % 2 === 0; } These are clearly not covered by copyright in the first place. This case is really quite pathetic.
When searching for "console.log(isEven(50));" "// → true", which is one of the parts that the complaints is about, since this is also reproduced inside a Programming learning book: We get with cs.github.com " Showing 1 - 20 of 66 files found (in 76 milliseconds)" So, if this lawsuit succeeds in some way shape or form, does the author have a case against the 66 people that reproduced these lines in their own repositor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
copilot isn't creating derivative works: copilot users are. the human at the keyboard is responsible for what goes into the source code being written. to aid copilot users here, they are creating tools to give users more info about the code they are seeing: https://github.blog/2022-11-01-preview-referencing-public-co...
Your argument is essentially the same as the argument that the pirate bay didn't infringe copyright, it only facilitated infringement. And we all saw how well that went legally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Moreover, if this case wins, it threatens to disrupt one of the biggest technological progressions of all time. AI/ML will change every field just as the Internet and smartphones did. It doesn't show any indication of peaking, either. If the US chooses the wrong path here, we'll only tie our hands behind our backs. Other countries won't be so foolish. We should be able to train on any media a child could see, hear, o…
> it threatens to disrupt one of the biggest technological progressions of all time. Chill dude, all they have to do is include the licenses on their generated code. If anything, this is going to generate even more progress. The copilot team would have to create some kind of feature that would connect the generated output the the relevant training data. That'd be pretty incredible to see in the field of AI/ML in gene…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a logical fallacy. A human is not an algorithm. We do not have to extend rights regarding novel invention to an algorithm to protect them for people.
Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense. If it were true, people would very easily game it, by using algorithms to automate the most trivial parts of copying someone's work. Ultimately the algorithm is automating something a human could do. There is a lot of gray area to copyright law, but you can't get around that simply by offloading to an a…
Uh? So if I design a self driving car which kills someone, it's the car that goes to jail?
Legal precedent seems to indicate this is not the case at all. Because humans and machines are different, simply because humans aren't machines and viceversa.
I’m not a lawyer, but here is why I believe a class action lawsuit is correct; “AI” is just fancy speak for “complex math program”. If I make a program that’s simply given an arbitrary input then, thought math operations, outputs Microsoft copyright code, am I in the clear just because it’s “AI”? I think they would sue the heck out of me if I did that, and I believe the opposite should be true as well. I’m sure my ow…
Humans are just compression with extra steps by that logic. There's a fairly simple technical fix for codex/copilot anyway; stick a search engine on the back end and index the training data and don't output things found in the search engine.
https://github.com/settings/copilot
More info:
We built a filter to help detect and suppress the rare instances where a GitHub Copilot suggestion contains code that resembles public code on GitHub. You have the choice to turn that filter on or off during setup. With the filter on, GitHub Copilot checks code suggestions with its surrounding code for matches or near matches (ignoring whitespace) against public code on GitHub of about 150 characters. If there is a match, the suggestion will not be shown to you. In addition, we have announced that we are building a feature that will provide a reference for suggestions that resemble public code on GitHub so that you can make a more informed decision about whether and how to use that code, as well as explore and learn how that code is used in other projects.
https://github.com/features/copilot#what-can-i-do-to-reduce-...
This will fail very quickly. The licence that project owners publish with their code on Github applies to third parties who wish to use the code, but does not apply to Github. Authors who publish their code on Github grant Github a licence under the Github Terms: https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t... Specifically, sections D.4 to D.7 grant Github the right to "to store, archive, parse, and d…
How about codebase that were uploaded to GitHub, by someone other than the original copyright owner? e.g. I can clone the GNU codebase and publish it to GitHub. Clearly I don't own the code and do not have any rights to grant GitHub a license.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans are just compression with extra steps by that logic. There's a fairly simple technical fix for codex/copilot anyway; stick a search engine on the back end and index the training data and don't output things found in the search engine.
I dont think that would work very well because there are not infinite ways to succinctly solve most programming problems. In fact the majority of solutions will look exactly the same. The real solution is very, very simple. Only use opt-in training data. Don't acquire codebases from people who didn't agree to it.
If I own a repository on github and I have received contributions from other people, or included a .h file from mpv (thing that I have done), do I still have the right to click the opt-in button? I didn't ask the other contributors.
But github is in a position to scan my code and see if there are copy paste bits and disable the opt-in button in that case.
Except they act in bad faith so they wouldn't do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who should be sued? Microsoft who produces an application known as "Copilot" which itself contains nobody else's code but Microsoft's? OR the person who USES Copilot, to produce code which contains somebody else's copyrighted code? Using Copilot is a bit like using a shotgun, can be very illegal depending on what you shoot at. Creating and distributing the app Copilot is like creating and selling a shotgun.
Everyone, copilot because they used (for training) and generate copyrighted code for they product and people that use the product. Although users can probably get away with it because they didn't know copilot was actively generating copyrighted code.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When searching for "console.log(isEven(50));" "// → true", which is one of the parts that the complaints is about, since this is also reproduced inside a Programming learning book: We get with cs.github.com " Showing 1 - 20 of 66 files found (in 76 milliseconds)" So, if this lawsuit succeeds in some way shape or form, does the author have a case against the 66 people that reproduced these lines in their own repositor…
They can already sue those people if they don't follow the original license, they just need to file a complaint individually to each author, I think. Standard OSS license stuff, or else, why would people even use licenses?