801–806 of 806 posts
Out of curiosity - has no one sued OpenAI/GitHub for this? I remember seeing threads like this since Copilot was launched. If there was enough legal pressure, I'd imagine OpenAI/Github training this using opt-in repos instead of using the model which they currently have.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BitTorrent is certainly not a good example to follow, but I do think that copilot is more wrong. They should definitely include disclaimers and make seeding opt-in (though I don't know how safe you are legally when you download a Lion King copy labeled Debian.iso). That said, they don't have the information necessary to tell whether what you're doing is legal or not. Copilot _has_ that information. The model spits ou…
It doesn't matter if the information is there or not, since an algorithm cannot commit a copyright violation. There is at least one human involved, and the human is the one who is responsible. A car has all the information that it's going faster than the speed limit, or that it just ran a red light. But in the end it's the driver who is responsible. It's not the tool (car, Copilot) that commits the illegal act, it's…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to be honest I've not used it but it truly sounds incredible that it can do things as well as you say. So you write tests and copilot generates code you shove into production with little overhead ? Do you read the code thoroughly (kind of negating having it generated for you?), or just have blind faith in it because tests are green and just YOLO it into production ? I'd feel pretty uneasy deploying code that:…
But I do review and test it and it is mostly 80% ok. It even learns your style of coding. Like said; it works best for stuff that is heavy on code but low on thought.
Genuine question, not being snarky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would the small studio access my private repo ?
They wouldn't. If you have it in a private repository and you are the only one with access to it, you'll likely not run into this issue. From other comments, this developers "private" code was found in 30k+ public repositories with public attribution which is what created this issue. Presumably your private code is not also present or leaked to any public repositories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter if the information is there or not, since an algorithm cannot commit a copyright violation. There is at least one human involved, and the human is the one who is responsible. A car has all the information that it's going faster than the speed limit, or that it just ran a red light. But in the end it's the driver who is responsible. It's not the tool (car, Copilot) that commits the illegal act, it's…
In the case of Copilot, you don't even have a speedometer.
It is still your responsibility to know and obey the traffic laws, the same as it is your responsibility to obey the copyright laws....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plenty of ways to make money without being useful—or by being actively harmful—to someone else. I don't equate, say, "making money" with "stealing money". I mean the way people do things within the law. Inheriting is different; the money is already made. Interest is being useful to someone else, via the loan of capital.
> I mean the way people do things within the law. The examples considered that: gambling, collecting interest, price gouging, underpaying workers, supporting laws to undermine competitors.
Gambling - I don't do it, but I'd need more specifics to see why gambling is bad in this sense. It's a voluntary pursuit that I think is a bad idea, but that doesn't make it illegal.
Price gouging is still being useful, just at a higher price. Someone could charge me £10 for bread and if that was the cheapest bread available, I'd buy it. If it is excessive and for essential goods, it is increasingly illegal, however. 42 out of 50 states in the US have anti-gouging laws [0], which, as I say, isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about legal things.
Underpaying workers - this certainly isn't illegal, unless it's below minimum wage, but also "underpaying" is an arbitrary term. If there's a regulatory/legal/corrupt state environment in which it's hard to create competitors to established businesses, then that's bad because it drives wages down. Otherwise, wages are set by what both the worker and employer sides will bear. And, lest we forget, there is still money coming into the business by it being useful. Customers are paying it for something. The fact that it might make less profit by paying more doesn't undermine that fundamental fact.
As for supporting laws to undermine competitors, that is something people can do, yes. Microsoft, after their app store went nowhere, came out against Apple and Google charging 30% for apps. Probably more of a PR move than a legal one, but businesses trying to influence laws isn't bad, because they have a valid perspective on the world just as we all do, unless it's corruption. Which is (once more, with feeling) illegal, and so out of scope of my comment. And again, unless the laws are there to establish a monopoly incumbent, which is pretty rare, and definitely the fault of the government that passes the laws, the company is still only really in existence because it does something useful enough to its customers that they pay it money.