6 ms·

Or: they used the entire open source corpus because they thought it was free for the taking, and when people point out that it is not (that there are licenses)

by not2b 5y ago

Or: they used the entire open source corpus because they thought it was free for the taking, and when people point out that it is not (that there are licenses) they spin that (claim that only 0.1% of output is directly copied, but that would mean 100 lines in 100k program) and pass any risk onto the user (saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce). So they aren't saying that users are in the clear, just that it isn't their problem.

nerpderp82 5y ago
Use neural indexes to find the code that most closely matches the output. Explainable AI should be able to tell you where the autocompletion results came from, even if it is a weighted set of files.
- abecedarius 5y ago
  That's a good idea in theory, but the smarter the agent gets, the less direct the derivation and the harder to explain it (and to check the explanation). We're already a long way from a nearest-neighbor model. Yet the equivalent problem for humans gets addressed by the clean-room approach. This seems unfair.
  - visarga 5y ago
    > the smarter the agent gets, the less direct the derivation and the harder to explain it at some point it should be different enough to stand on its own, right? then we have no problem with copyrights
    - abecedarius 5y ago
      Yeah, also in principle. But the cleanroom approach isn't technically required for humans either -- it became standard because the legal notion of a derived work is very fuzzy and gradually changing, and lawsuits are expensive and chancy, so you want a process that's provably not infringing. "Yeah I learned some general ideas from this code, but I didn't derive any of my code from theirs" seems to be a logical rats-nest. With the explainable-AI approach to this particular problem, the more intelligent the AI, the more this solution is like analyzing brain scans of your engineers. If your engineers could have produced "derived work" without literal copying, why can't the AI?
      - nerpderp82 5y ago
        I agree, but we aren't anywhere close to that level yet. For that to be true, I think the AI should possibly have the ability to explain the code it created. What we have now is basically a fancy markov adlib code completion tool. A more intelligent agent should be able to tell you where it learned all of its knowledge from. I personally would like my AI to be above "gut level instincts" otherwise it reinforces blind trust.
yunohn 5y ago
> 100 lines in 100k program The intention is autocomplete boilerplate, not write a kernel.
- jonathankoren 5y ago
  This is not a difference in kind. Autocomplete, do you have anything to say to the commenter ? “This isn’t the best thing to say.”
  - visarga 5y ago
    Coding a snippet is not different in kind from designing a Kernel? It's the difference between tactics and strategy.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      I’ll direct you to my other comment in this thread. But give you the TL;DNR no it isn’t.
  - rowanG077 5y ago
    How is designing a very large system even close to the same thing as writing a few small functions? That's like saying an architect designing a building is doing the same thing as a brick layer putting down cement.
    - jonathankoren 5y ago
      “””Computers can already author documents at near human quality. Research is continuing to increase the accuracy and volume of these models. Language processing research will not only help doctors, but will allow machine-based language translation, and eventually automated chat bots that can converse in our languages. The next steps in human-machine collaboration are to allow people and machines to co-create. A recent Chinese report suggests that 50% of scientific papers in this field will be written without human intervention by 2033, compared with only 11% today. One of the biggest challenges of machine learning is giving the machine what it lacks. This usually means gaining enough training data to teach the algorithm how to make inferences from data points it has never encountered before. Many of the large organisations involved in advancing AI's ability to develop documents can improve how the algorithms learn by building on the knowledge and experience of human workers.””” The above text was automatically written by https://app.inferkit.com/demo https://app.inferkit.com/demo . It uses a language model to predict the next word in a sequence. In other words, to use your example, it not only architects, but builds, the entire building simply by predicting where to put the next brick. So to answer your question: Yes. That’s exactly how it’s done.
Closi 5y ago
Also, 0.1% of output is directly copied doesn't include the lines where the variable names were slightly changed, but the code was still copied. If you got the Microsoft codebase and Ctrl+F'd all the variable names and renamed them, I bet they would still argue that the compiled program was still a copy.
vharuck 5y ago
>saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce But, if some of the code produced is covered by copyright, isn't Microsoft in trouble for distributing software that distributes copyrighted code without a license? How would it be different from giving out bootlegs DVDs and trying to avoid blame by reminding everyone that the recipients don't own the copyright?
- visarga 5y ago
  this complicated copyright problem shows we're still using last century concepts on new and emerging technology that surpassed it; it's time to think hard about it because we need neural nets and they need training data
  - zelphirkalt 5y ago
    Some are more equal than others though, aren't they? I mean, if MS throws out licensed code from others, as if to say: "Ahh, software licensing, such an outdated concept ..." but then keeps its own code out of that loop. "Yeah, but that's our own code, no one is allowed to copy that!"
    - visarga 5y ago
      I doubt they will corner the market for AI code assistants. ML models are replicated or surpassed in a few months by the competition. We will all benefit from them, it won't remain concentrated in a few hands.

by not2b 5y ago

nerpderp82 5y ago

Use neural indexes to find the code that most closely matches the output. Explainable AI should be able to tell you where the autocompletion results came from, even if it is a weighted set of files.

abecedarius 5y ago
That's a good idea in theory, but the smarter the agent gets, the less direct the derivation and the harder to explain it (and to check the explanation). We're already a long way from a nearest-neighbor model. Yet the equivalent problem for humans gets addressed by the clean-room approach. This seems unfair.
- visarga 5y ago
  > the smarter the agent gets, the less direct the derivation and the harder to explain it at some point it should be different enough to stand on its own, right? then we have no problem with copyrights
  - abecedarius 5y ago
    Yeah, also in principle. But the cleanroom approach isn't technically required for humans either -- it became standard because the legal notion of a derived work is very fuzzy and gradually changing, and lawsuits are expensive and chancy, so you want a process that's provably not infringing. "Yeah I learned some general ideas from this code, but I didn't derive any of my code from theirs" seems to be a logical rats-nest. With the explainable-AI approach to this particular problem, the more intelligent the AI, the more this solution is like analyzing brain scans of your engineers. If your engineers could have produced "derived work" without literal copying, why can't the AI?
    - nerpderp82 5y ago
      I agree, but we aren't anywhere close to that level yet. For that to be true, I think the AI should possibly have the ability to explain the code it created. What we have now is basically a fancy markov adlib code completion tool. A more intelligent agent should be able to tell you where it learned all of its knowledge from. I personally would like my AI to be above "gut level instincts" otherwise it reinforces blind trust.

yunohn 5y ago

> 100 lines in 100k program The intention is autocomplete boilerplate, not write a kernel.

jonathankoren 5y ago
This is not a difference in kind. Autocomplete, do you have anything to say to the commenter ? “This isn’t the best thing to say.”
- visarga 5y ago
  Coding a snippet is not different in kind from designing a Kernel? It's the difference between tactics and strategy.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    I’ll direct you to my other comment in this thread. But give you the TL;DNR no it isn’t.
- rowanG077 5y ago
  How is designing a very large system even close to the same thing as writing a few small functions? That's like saying an architect designing a building is doing the same thing as a brick layer putting down cement.
  - jonathankoren 5y ago
    “””Computers can already author documents at near human quality. Research is continuing to increase the accuracy and volume of these models. Language processing research will not only help doctors, but will allow machine-based language translation, and eventually automated chat bots that can converse in our languages. The next steps in human-machine collaboration are to allow people and machines to co-create. A recent Chinese report suggests that 50% of scientific papers in this field will be written without human intervention by 2033, compared with only 11% today. One of the biggest challenges of machine learning is giving the machine what it lacks. This usually means gaining enough training data to teach the algorithm how to make inferences from data points it has never encountered before. Many of the large organisations involved in advancing AI's ability to develop documents can improve how the algorithms learn by building on the knowledge and experience of human workers.””” The above text was automatically written by https://app.inferkit.com/demo https://app.inferkit.com/demo . It uses a language model to predict the next word in a sequence. In other words, to use your example, it not only architects, but builds, the entire building simply by predicting where to put the next brick. So to answer your question: Yes. That’s exactly how it’s done.

Closi 5y ago

Also, 0.1% of output is directly copied doesn't include the lines where the variable names were slightly changed, but the code was still copied. If you got the Microsoft codebase and Ctrl+F'd all the variable names and renamed them, I bet they would still argue that the compiled program was still a copy.

vharuck 5y ago

>saying it is their responsibility to vet any code they produce But, if some of the code produced is covered by copyright, isn't Microsoft in trouble for distributing software that distributes copyrighted code without a license? How would it be different from giving out bootlegs DVDs and trying to avoid blame by reminding everyone that the recipients don't own the copyright?

visarga 5y ago
this complicated copyright problem shows we're still using last century concepts on new and emerging technology that surpassed it; it's time to think hard about it because we need neural nets and they need training data
- zelphirkalt 5y ago
  Some are more equal than others though, aren't they? I mean, if MS throws out licensed code from others, as if to say: "Ahh, software licensing, such an outdated concept ..." but then keeps its own code out of that loop. "Yeah, but that's our own code, no one is allowed to copy that!"
  - visarga 5y ago
    I doubt they will corner the market for AI code assistants. ML models are replicated or surpassed in a few months by the competition. We will all benefit from them, it won't remain concentrated in a few hands.