91–100 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They say they don’t
I don't understand why people just automatically doubt things that companies say when they can be sued (or would otherwise destroy their business) if they are lying about it. Seems unnecessarily pessimistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes it so expensive? I’d always assumed it downloaded the .git directory statically, and the computational bits were down by the local client.
I'd assume this is in relation to how much other operations cost. With 'git clone' you at least download the whole repository. Compare that to 'git fetch', which is essentially a lookup at the last-modified timestamp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people just automatically doubt things that companies say when they can be sued (or would otherwise destroy their business) if they are lying about it. Seems unnecessarily pessimistic.
I mean, we discovered that the whole car industry was lying flagrantly on their emission tests which had the potential of destroying the whole business and there were A LOT of people who knew about it and could talk anytime Why wouldn't sw companies do the same?
None.... so the grandparents comment is with out evidence that either consumers or regulators hold companies to account
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn’t about a person learning, however. This is about developing an algorithm through the inclusion of GPL licensed code, that might — and has — verbatim emitted that code. Those seem materially different to me.
You can without attribution verbatim copy the parts of GPL code that is not covered by copyright, such as anything purely functional, like an optimized sorting algorithm. Copyright is for art. Patents are for utilities and tools. The art in GPL code is in the arbitrary decisions made about how to structure that code… the class structure and not the algorithms. You cannot copyright an algorithm and for very good reaso…
Now they may have found a way. And that I think is the potential anti-trust issue here.
What is one of the main obstacles to Microsoft's monopoly dominance in the software sphere? The Linux kernel, it's everywhere. And it's under the GPL, a license explicitly resistant to "Embrace, extend, and extinguish" (old school Gates/Balmer MS). Microsoft right now is not emphasizing an anti-Linux, anti-GPL focus, but it clearly has in the past and it (and others) could definitely do so again in the future.
Systems like CoPilot have the potential to be for the GPL (or other copyleft type licenses) what cryptocurrency 'mixers' or 'tumblers' are to money laundering laws. A potential to be an automated way to pull pieces of IP out of those licenses and into other codebases without respecting the obligations that go with it.
A lot of the dialog on here and other threads on this forum in the past shows me that understanding of copyleft licenses among the open source and developer community is really low right now. This is the license that the Linux kernel is licensed under, it is extremely important. There should be better recognition of the rights and responsibilities afforded by it.
The GPL was explicitly formulated as a way to protect portions of the hobbyist and free software community from potentially predatory commercial interests. Remember it's always possible to attempt to negotiate a commercial non-copyleft license with an entity that has released its source under the GPL. But if you don't, you have to respect its distribution requirements. It's fine to be personally opposed to using the GPL for your own work, but it is important to understand the obligations that come with it. And that includes systems that harvest data from it automatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand why people just automatically doubt things that companies say when they can be sued (or would otherwise destroy their business) if they are lying about it. Seems unnecessarily pessimistic.
But will that actually be against ToS or copyright? Many people tend to say that copilot learning from OSS doesn’t infringe any copyright and is no different from a person just learning from someone else’s work. So how is it different if copilot is learning from private repositories? Or eg from leaked source code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s really not that hard to git clone git set origin… It’s much harder to copy Google’s index.
You think it's practical to do this with almost all the public repos on Github?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
21Tb of data, they might rate limit you! But might be possible via proxies. But only public repos.
Copilot was only trained on public repos. Id be surprised if you were throttled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OpenAI is not the same company as GitHub, and it has always been pretty clear that chats on ChatGPT are recorded and used for training (unless you now opt out).
Not sure why you're bringing OpenAI into it. My comment and the article is about "Copilot" I'm talking about when using "Github Copilot" and you ask for a code suggestion, it would send the "context" back to GitHub / Microsoft and use that code as training. Your comment is interesting to me though because there does seem to be a surprisingly large amount of defending OpenAI going on. Almost seems automatic now.
Because this is fundamentally how the system works. The context is the prompt.
> and use that code as training
This part has never been true. It’s not how these systems work. Do you have anything to back up your claim?