5 ms·

This goes into one of my favorite philosophical topics: John Searle's Chinese Room. I won't go into it here, but the question of whether an AI is actually learn

This goes into one of my favorite philosophical topics: John Searle's Chinese Room. I won't go into it here, but the question of whether an AI is actually learning how to code or simply substituting information based on statistically common practices (or if there really is a difference between either) is going to be one hell of a problem for the next few decades as we start to approach fine points of what AI is and how it could be defined. However, legally, the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is an API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense. In the near-future, when we have AI-assisted reverse engineering along with Github co-pilot, then, with enough obfuscation there's nothing that can't be legally created or recreated on a computer, proprietary or not. This is simultaneously free software's greatest dream and worst nightmare. Edit: changed Hilary Putnam to John Searle Edit 2: spelling

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
salawat 5y ago
That's John Searle's thought experiment actually. Hilary Putnam had some thoughts in reference to it along the lines that a brain in a vat might think in a language similar to what we would speak, but the words of that language would necessarily encode different meanings due to the different experience of the external world and sensory isolation. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Thanks for the correction. I made it known in my edit.
AJ007 5y ago
And this applies to everything, not just source code. I’m just presuming we have a future where you can consume unique content indefinitely. Such as instead of binge watching Star Trek on Netflix you press play and new episodes are generated and played continuously, 24/7, and they are actually really good. Thus intellectual property becomes a commodity.
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  While headway has been made in photo algorithms like StyleGAN, GPT-3's scriptwriting, and AI voice replication, we aren't even close to having AI-generated stick cartoons or anime. At best, AI generated Star Trek trained on old episodes would produce the live-action equivalent of limited animation; it would reuse the most liked parts over an over again and rehash the same camerawork and lens focus that you got in the 60's and the 90's. There wouldn't be any new planets explored, no new species, no advances in cinematography, and certainly no self-insert character (in case you wanted to see - simulation of how you'd fair on the Enterprise). It wouldn't add anything new as far as I can see. Now if there was some way to recreate all the characters in photorealistic 3D with Unreal Engine, feed them a script, and use some form of intelligent creature and planet generation, you may get a little closer to creating a truly new episode.
cxr 5y ago
> the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense That's a wild misconstrual of what the courts actually ruled in Oracle v. Google. (And to the reader: don't take cues from people banging out poorly reasoned quasi-legal arguments in off-the-cuff comments.)
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  Straight from the horse's mouth [1]: pg.2 'This case implicates two of the limits in the current Copyright Act. First, the Act provides that copyright protection cannot extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery . . . .” 17 U. S. C. §102(b). Second, the Act provides that a copyright holder may not prevent another person from making a “fair use” of a copyrighted work. §107. Google’s petition asks the Court to apply both provisions to the copying at issue here. To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on whether Google’s use of those lines was a “fair use.” "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" sounds suspiciously like an API. Continuing: Pg. 3-4 'To determine whether Google’s limited copying of the API here constitutes fair use, the Court examines the four guiding factors set forth in the Copyright Act’s fair use provision... ' (1) The nature of the work at issue favors fair use. The copied lines of code are part of a “user interface” that provides a way for programmers to access prewritten computer code through the use of simple commands. As a result, this code is different from many other types of code, such as the code that actually instructs the computer to execute a task. As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (the overall organization of the API) and the creation of new creative expression (the code independently written by Google)... (2) The inquiry into the “the purpose and character” of the use turns in large measure on whether the copying at issue was “transformative,” i.e., whether it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language .... The record demonstrates numerous ways in which reimplementing an interface can further the development of computer programs. Google’s purpose was therefore consistent with that creative progress that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself. (3) Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as one small part of the considerably greater whole. As part of an interface, the copied lines of code are inextricably bound to other lines of code that are accessed by programmers. Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. The “substantiality” factor will generally weigh in favor of fair use where, as here, the amount of copying was tethered to a valid, and transformative, purpose. (4) The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the cop- ying in the “market for or value of the copyrighted work.” §107(4). Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE. The record also showed that Java SE’s copyright holder would benefit from the reimplementation of its interface into a different market. Finally, enforcing the copyright on these facts risks causing creativity-related harms to the public. When taken together, these considerations demonstrate that the fourth factor—market effects—also weighs in favor of fair use. 'The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world. Applying the principles of the Court’s precedents and Congress’ codification of the fair use doctrine to the distinct copyrighted work here, the Court concludes that Google’s copying of the API to reimplement a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, constituted a fair use of that material as a matter of law. In reaching this result, the Court does not overturn or modify its earlier cases involving fair use.' [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
toyg 5y ago
> However, legally, the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense. That's... a mind-bendingly bad take. Google took an API definition and duplicated it; Copilot is taking general code and (allegedly) duplicating it. This was not done in order to enable any sort of interoperability or compatibility. The "API defense" would apply if Copilot only produced API-related code, or (against CP) if someone reproduced the interfaces copilot exposes to consumers. > Microsoft has a good defense. MS has many good defenses (transformative work, github agreements, etc etc), but this is not one of them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

salawat 5y ago

That's John Searle's thought experiment actually. Hilary Putnam had some thoughts in reference to it along the lines that a brain in a vat might think in a language similar to what we would speak, but the words of that language would necessarily encode different meanings due to the different experience of the external world and sensory isolation. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Thanks for the correction. I made it known in my edit.

AJ007 5y ago

And this applies to everything, not just source code. I’m just presuming we have a future where you can consume unique content indefinitely. Such as instead of binge watching Star Trek on Netflix you press play and new episodes are generated and played continuously, 24/7, and they are actually really good. Thus intellectual property becomes a commodity.

Dracophoenix 5y ago
While headway has been made in photo algorithms like StyleGAN, GPT-3's scriptwriting, and AI voice replication, we aren't even close to having AI-generated stick cartoons or anime. At best, AI generated Star Trek trained on old episodes would produce the live-action equivalent of limited animation; it would reuse the most liked parts over an over again and rehash the same camerawork and lens focus that you got in the 60's and the 90's. There wouldn't be any new planets explored, no new species, no advances in cinematography, and certainly no self-insert character (in case you wanted to see - simulation of how you'd fair on the Enterprise). It wouldn't add anything new as far as I can see. Now if there was some way to recreate all the characters in photorealistic 3D with Unreal Engine, feed them a script, and use some form of intelligent creature and planet generation, you may get a little closer to creating a truly new episode.

cxr 5y ago

> the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense That's a wild misconstrual of what the courts actually ruled in Oracle v. Google. (And to the reader: don't take cues from people banging out poorly reasoned quasi-legal arguments in off-the-cuff comments.)

Dracophoenix 5y ago
Straight from the horse's mouth [1]: pg.2 'This case implicates two of the limits in the current Copyright Act. First, the Act provides that copyright protection cannot extend to “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery . . . .” 17 U. S. C. §102(b). Second, the Act provides that a copyright holder may not prevent another person from making a “fair use” of a copyrighted work. §107. Google’s petition asks the Court to apply both provisions to the copying at issue here. To decide no more than is necessary to resolve this case, the Court assumes for argument’s sake that the copied lines can be copyrighted, and focuses on whether Google’s use of those lines was a “fair use.” "any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery" sounds suspiciously like an API. Continuing: Pg. 3-4 'To determine whether Google’s limited copying of the API here constitutes fair use, the Court examines the four guiding factors set forth in the Copyright Act’s fair use provision... ' (1) The nature of the work at issue favors fair use. The copied lines of code are part of a “user interface” that provides a way for programmers to access prewritten computer code through the use of simple commands. As a result, this code is different from many other types of code, such as the code that actually instructs the computer to execute a task. As part of an interface, the copied lines are inherently bound together with uncopyrightable ideas (the overall organization of the API) and the creation of new creative expression (the code independently written by Google)... (2) The inquiry into the “the purpose and character” of the use turns in large measure on whether the copying at issue was “transformative,” i.e., whether it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” Campbell, 510 U. S., at 579. Google’s limited copying of the API is a transformative use. Google copied only what was needed to allow programmers to work in a different computing environment without discarding a portion of a familiar programming language .... The record demonstrates numerous ways in which reimplementing an interface can further the development of computer programs. Google’s purpose was therefore consistent with that creative progress that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself. (3) Google copied approximately 11,500 lines of declaring code from the API, which amounts to virtually all the declaring code needed to call up hundreds of different tasks. Those 11,500 lines, however, are only 0.4 percent of the entire API at issue, which consists of 2.86 million total lines. In considering “the amount and substantiality of the portion used” in this case, the 11,500 lines of code should be viewed as one small part of the considerably greater whole. As part of an interface, the copied lines of code are inextricably bound to other lines of code that are accessed by programmers. Google copied these lines not because of their creativity or beauty but because they would allow programmers to bring their skills to a new smartphone computing environment. The “substantiality” factor will generally weigh in favor of fair use where, as here, the amount of copying was tethered to a valid, and transformative, purpose. (4) The fourth statutory factor focuses upon the “effect” of the cop- ying in the “market for or value of the copyrighted work.” §107(4). Here the record showed that Google’s new smartphone platform is not a market substitute for Java SE. The record also showed that Java SE’s copyright holder would benefit from the reimplementation of its interface into a different market. Finally, enforcing the copyright on these facts risks causing creativity-related harms to the public. When taken together, these considerations demonstrate that the fourth factor—market effects—also weighs in favor of fair use. 'The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in that technological world. Applying the principles of the Court’s precedents and Congress’ codification of the fair use doctrine to the distinct copyrighted work here, the Court concludes that Google’s copying of the API to reimplement a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, constituted a fair use of that material as a matter of law. In reaching this result, the Court does not overturn or modify its earlier cases involving fair use.' [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf

toyg 5y ago

> However, legally, the most recent Oracle vs. Google case has already settled a major point: APIs don't violate copyright. And as Github co-pilot is API (A self-modifying one, but an API nonetheless), Microsoft has a good defense. That's... a mind-bendingly bad take. Google took an API definition and duplicated it; Copilot is taking general code and (allegedly) duplicating it. This was not done in order to enable any sort of interoperability or compatibility. The "API defense" would apply if Copilot only produced API-related code, or (against CP) if someone reproduced the interfaces copilot exposes to consumers. > Microsoft has a good defense. MS has many good defenses (transformative work, github agreements, etc etc), but this is not one of them.