5 ms·

This isn't the same situation at all. The copying of code doesn't seem to be for a limited or transformative purpose. Fair use might cover parody or commentar

by IncRnd 5y ago

This isn't the same situation at all. The copying of code doesn't seem to be for a limited or transformative purpose. Fair use might cover parody or commentary & criticism but not limitless replication.

zarzavat 5y ago
They are not replicating the code at all. They are training a neural network. The neural network then learns from the code and synthesises new code. It's no different from a human programmer reading code, learning from it, and using that experience to write new code. Somewhere in your head there is code that someone else wrote. And it's not infringing anybody's copyright for those memories to exist in your head.
- jaimeyap 5y ago
  We can't yet equivocate ML systems with human beings. Maybe one day. But at the moment, it's probably better to compare this to a compiler being fed licensed code. The compilation output is still subject to the license. Regardless of how fancy the compiler is. Also, a human being that reproduces licensed code from memory - because they read that code - would constitute a license violation. The line between derivative work, and authentic new original creation is not a well defined one. This is why we still have human arbiters of these decisions and not formal differential definitions of it. This happens in music for example all the time.
- blibble 5y ago
  surely that depends on the size of the training set? I could feed the Linux kernel one function at a time into a ML model, then coerce its output to be exactly the same as the input this is obviously copyright infringement whereas in the github case where they've trained it on millions of projects maybe it isn't? does the training set size become relevant legally?
- IncRnd 5y ago
  It is replication, maybe not of a single piece of code - but creating a synthesis is still copying. For example, constructing a single piece of code of three pieces of code from your co-workers is still replication of code. Your argument would have some merit if something were created instead of assembled, but there is no new algorithm that is being created. That is not what is happening here. On the one hand, you call this copying in fair use. On the other hand, you say this is creating new code. You can't have it both ways.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    > Your argument would have some merit if something were created instead of assembled, but there is no new algorithm that is being created. That is not what is happening here. If you're going to set such a high standard for ML tools like this, I think you need to justify why it shouldn't apply to humans too. When a human programmer who has read copyrighted code at some point in their life writes new code that is not a "new algorithm", are they in violation of the copyrights of every piece of code they've ever read that was remotely similar in any respect to the new work? I mean, I hope not! > On the one hand, you call this copying in fair use. On the other hand, you say this is creating new code. You can't have it both ways. I'm not a lawyer, but this actually sounds very close to the "transformative" criterion under fair use. Elements of existing code in the training set are being synthesized into new code for a new application. I assume there's no off-the-shelf precedent for this, but given the similarity with how human programmers learn and apply knowledge, it doesn't seem crazy to think this might be ruled as legitimate fair use. I'd guess it would come down to how willing the ML system is to suggest snippets that are both verbatim and highly non-generic.
    - IncRnd 5y ago
      From https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...: "Once, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an empty file with something it had even seen more than a whopping 700,000 different times during training -- that was the GNU General Public License." On the same page is an image showing copilot in real-time adding the text of the famous python poem, The Zen of Python. See https://docs.github.com/assets/images/help/copilot/resources_recitation_example_zen.gif https://docs.github.com/assets/images/help/copilot/resources... for a link directly to copilot doing this. You are making arguments about what you read instead of objectively observing how copilot operates. Just because GH wrote that copilot synthesizes new code doesn't mean that it writes new code in the way that a human writes code. That is not what is happening here. It is replicating code. Even in the best case copilot is creating derivative works from code where GH is not the copyright owner.
      - 5y ago
- michaelpb 5y ago
  If avoiding copyright violations was simply "I remembered it", then I don't think things like clean-room reverse engineering would be ever legally necessary [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
- IncRnd 5y ago
  > They are not replicating the code at all. Now that five days have passed, there have been a number of examples of copilot doing just that, replicating code. Quake source code that even included comments, the famous python poem, etc. There are many examples of code that has been replicated - not synthesized but duplicated byte for byte from the originals.

by IncRnd 5y ago

zarzavat 5y ago

They are not replicating the code at all. They are training a neural network. The neural network then learns from the code and synthesises new code. It's no different from a human programmer reading code, learning from it, and using that experience to write new code. Somewhere in your head there is code that someone else wrote. And it's not infringing anybody's copyright for those memories to exist in your head.

jaimeyap 5y ago
We can't yet equivocate ML systems with human beings. Maybe one day. But at the moment, it's probably better to compare this to a compiler being fed licensed code. The compilation output is still subject to the license. Regardless of how fancy the compiler is. Also, a human being that reproduces licensed code from memory - because they read that code - would constitute a license violation. The line between derivative work, and authentic new original creation is not a well defined one. This is why we still have human arbiters of these decisions and not formal differential definitions of it. This happens in music for example all the time.
blibble 5y ago
surely that depends on the size of the training set? I could feed the Linux kernel one function at a time into a ML model, then coerce its output to be exactly the same as the input this is obviously copyright infringement whereas in the github case where they've trained it on millions of projects maybe it isn't? does the training set size become relevant legally?
IncRnd 5y ago
It is replication, maybe not of a single piece of code - but creating a synthesis is still copying. For example, constructing a single piece of code of three pieces of code from your co-workers is still replication of code. Your argument would have some merit if something were created instead of assembled, but there is no new algorithm that is being created. That is not what is happening here. On the one hand, you call this copying in fair use. On the other hand, you say this is creating new code. You can't have it both ways.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > Your argument would have some merit if something were created instead of assembled, but there is no new algorithm that is being created. That is not what is happening here. If you're going to set such a high standard for ML tools like this, I think you need to justify why it shouldn't apply to humans too. When a human programmer who has read copyrighted code at some point in their life writes new code that is not a "new algorithm", are they in violation of the copyrights of every piece of code they've ever read that was remotely similar in any respect to the new work? I mean, I hope not! > On the one hand, you call this copying in fair use. On the other hand, you say this is creating new code. You can't have it both ways. I'm not a lawyer, but this actually sounds very close to the "transformative" criterion under fair use. Elements of existing code in the training set are being synthesized into new code for a new application. I assume there's no off-the-shelf precedent for this, but given the similarity with how human programmers learn and apply knowledge, it doesn't seem crazy to think this might be ruled as legitimate fair use. I'd guess it would come down to how willing the ML system is to suggest snippets that are both verbatim and highly non-generic.
  - IncRnd 5y ago
    From https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...: "Once, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an empty file with something it had even seen more than a whopping 700,000 different times during training -- that was the GNU General Public License." On the same page is an image showing copilot in real-time adding the text of the famous python poem, The Zen of Python. See https://docs.github.com/assets/images/help/copilot/resources_recitation_example_zen.gif https://docs.github.com/assets/images/help/copilot/resources... for a link directly to copilot doing this. You are making arguments about what you read instead of objectively observing how copilot operates. Just because GH wrote that copilot synthesizes new code doesn't mean that it writes new code in the way that a human writes code. That is not what is happening here. It is replicating code. Even in the best case copilot is creating derivative works from code where GH is not the copyright owner.
    - 5y ago
michaelpb 5y ago
If avoiding copyright violations was simply "I remembered it", then I don't think things like clean-room reverse engineering would be ever legally necessary [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
IncRnd 5y ago
> They are not replicating the code at all. Now that five days have passed, there have been a number of examples of copilot doing just that, replicating code. Quake source code that even included comments, the famous python poem, etc. There are many examples of code that has been replicated - not synthesized but duplicated byte for byte from the originals.