4 ms·
> No. We both aren't You say I'm not ... but then you say, explicitly in so many words, that I am: > You are speculating how copyright law should handle ML co
by caconym_ 5y ago
> No. We both aren't
You say I'm not ... but then you say, explicitly in so many words, that I am:
> You are speculating how copyright law should handle ML code synthesis.
I don't get it. Am I, or aren't I? Which is it? I mean, not that you get to tell me what I am talking about, but it seems like something we should get cleared up.
edit: Maybe you mean I am, and you aren't?
Beyond that, I skimmed the Github link, and my takeaway was that this is a small problem (statistically, in terms of occurrence rate) that they have concrete approaches to fixing before full launch. I never disputed that "recitation" is currently an issue, but honestly that link seems to back up my position more than it does yours (to the extent that yours is coherent, which (as above) I would dispute).
- IncRnd 5y ago>> No. We both aren't >You say I'm not ... but then you say, explicitly in so many words, that I am: >> You are speculating how copyright law should handle ML code synthesis. "We both aren't" is not the same as "You are not". >> edit: Maybe you mean I am, and you aren't? There you go. That is exactly what I wrote. "No. We both aren't. I am discussing how copilot operates from the perspective of a user concerned about legal ramifications. I backed that concern up with specific factual quotes and animated images from github, where github unequivocally demonstrated how copilot copies code. You are speculating how copyright law should handle ML code synthesis."
- caconym_ 5y agoAnd I guess you read my comment so closely, given that you apparently completely missed my edit? Get over yourself, man.