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

We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

githubcopilotlitigation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

791–800 of 824 posts

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#791

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

bobbruno wrote: post #754
kelnos wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fine with Copilot, but I think all rightsholders should be allowed to decide if they want their code training it or not. And that should be opt-in, not opt-out. (And refusing to opt in shouldn't have to mean switching to a new hosting platform.) > Beyond that, the class members aren't likely to get much if any money. The only party here who stands to clearly benefit is the attorneys. That's the case in pretty muc…

Hypothetically, if I wanted to learn how to code by studying open source examples on GitHub, should I have to go ask permission of each rightsholder to learn from their code? I agree that, if Copilot is based on a model that overfits to output the exact same code it read, the lawsuit has merit (and Copilot is not really ML), but the idea of ML is that the model doesn’t memorize specific answers, it learns internal ru…

> the idea of ML is that the model doesn’t memorize specific answers, it learns internal rules and higher-level representations

that's the idea, yeah, and it would've been great if that's how copilot worked all the time

as for the whataboutism, if developers copied copyrighted code, the rights holder has the right to go after them, too, if they so choose

the rights holder could also choose to go after only big companies that violate licenses egregiously, if they so choose

you know, common sense and nuance

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#792

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

D13Fd wrote: post #626
mbreese wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Morally I think this class action is dead wrong. This is how innovation dies. This legal challenge is coming one way or another. I think it’s better to get it out of the way early. At least then we will know the rules going forward, as opposed to being in some quasi-legal gray area for years.

I disagree. The more entrenched a practice is, like training AI models on media content, the less willing a court is going to be to take that practice away.

that seems like a machiavellian way of avoiding The People deciding the issue for themselves via their government representatives, and it'd just make things harder when the court takes the practice away anyways

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#793

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

robbrown451 wrote: post #523
devmor wrote: post #491

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…

> Differentiating between a human and a machine simply because one "is not an algorithm" doesn't make a lot of sense.

it makes a lot of sense, for that reason and a lot of others

people can create algorithms that do whatever they want, including copyright infringement and outright criminality, but algorithms can't create people or want anything for themselves

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#794

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

Aeolun wrote: post #427
Cort3z wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People would likely not share any code if they could not trust that their work would be respected, and attributed. So yes, I believe it to be fundamental to open source.

Maybe researchers that are used to hunting for publications and attributions. If I’m sharing my code publicly, it’s because I want it to be _used_.

maybe that is true, but there exist others for whom that is not true, and as long as they number greater than zero, the argument that 'open source means free to use however for whatever' will be invalid

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#795

Post by buzzy_hacker »

m00x wrote: post #690
buzzy_hacker wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions: a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date. b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added u…

So if a developer reads GPL code, learns, then writes new code later on, it infringes on that license?

A developer is a person. Copilot is software based on the GPL code. Just because you use the word “learn” does not make what a human does and software does the same thing.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#796

Post by vlovich123 »

az226 wrote: post #776
vlovich123 wrote: post #643

Can someone explain to me Microsoft’s decision here to use GPL code in the training set? It would seem like sticking to non-attribution / non-viral licenses would have kept them in the clear. Was that an insufficient size data set?

It only trains on the GPL code, it doesn't reproduce entire code files verbatim. So it's fair use.

Except when it does

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#797

Post by skeaker »

chlorion wrote: post #601
D13Fd wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, thank you. This is exactly right. The entire response to this suit on this site is mind-blowing to me. Everyone is up in arms that someone trained an AI model that could potentially spit out tiny, twisted fragments of public, open-source code. This response is nothing but selfish behavior that runs counter to the core principles of open source development and the free software movement.

It's selfish to want people to abide by the license I released my project under? That's pure nonsense.

Well yeah, it is. Some function that you wrote years ago in an hour having one line taken out of it to be used in a project that wouldn't have made money anyways doesn't hurt you at all regardless of what license is on your project. Getting upset because "that was MINE!" does come off as very selfish.

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#798

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

pmarreck wrote: post #335
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably false. It is a system outputting character-for-character repository code.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33457517

It can be modified to not do that (example: mutating the code to a "synonym" that is functionally but not visually identical). It can also be modified to be opt-in-only (only peoples' code that they permit to be learned on, can use the product)

plagiarism with some words swapped is still plagiarism

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#799

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

lovich wrote: post #382
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it doesn't imply it's a service you want, but rather, if you do want it, you can opt-in to the service by joining the lawsuit when the time comes if you feel the class doesn't represent you, you can just not opt-in

I perhaps wasn’t clear, I meant that I am not sure I want copilot constrained in this way. If I solidify that belief into definitely not wanting copilot constrained, then this would be a negative suit for me

understood, and there are others who do want it constrained this way, and their right to not be a victim of copyright infringement outweighs a desire to reap the gains of such infringement

Re: We've filed a lawsuit against GitHub Copilot

#800

Post by still_grokking »

account42 wrote: post #681
codebje wrote: post #628

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find your comment a bit perplexing, perhaps you can help me understand. Why do you want to release code on GitHub with an oppressive license? What's the motivation for you, and what's the benefit for anyone else in it being released? The size of code fragments being generated with these AI tools is, as far as I can tell, extremely small. Do you think you could even notice if your own implementation of sqrt, comment…

The point of copyleft licenses (which I assume are what you mean with "opressive") is to subvert copyright in order to incentivize others to share their code by providing them with something to build on if they return the favor. You cannot possibly call these licenses opressive since the default state with copyright is that you are not allowed to do much at all (at least when it comes to copying). In fact copyleft li…

It's a pity I can up-vote only once. This nails it!
Post reply on HN