5 ms·
Sometimes large institutions with lots of smart people can analyze and get comfortable with positions on issues that turn out to be completely wrong a decade or
by kethinov 5y ago
Sometimes large institutions with lots of smart people can analyze and get comfortable with positions on issues that turn out to be completely wrong a decade or so later. Happens all the time.
I'm not sure whether or not I agree that is happening here, but I've spent enough time in big companies to develop a healthy skepticism of their decision-making processes. So much groupthink.
- yunohn 5y agoThere is no groupthink, most companies have a legal department that does impartial due diligence, esp. FAANG like Microsoft. I still don't understand how there's so much armchair quarterbacking around legality of Copilot, from people with zero legal skills and just anti-big-tech hot-takes.
- phone8675309 5y ago> There is no groupthink, most companies have a legal department that does impartial due diligence, esp. FAANG like Microsoft. Because Microsoft's legal department (and the company itself) has a spotless reputation for ethical and legal compliance.
- yunohn 5y agoThat is simply not the same thing as basic due diligence.
- joshgree88 5y agoI don't actually see anyone suggesting that they haven't thought about the legal implications as you said it would be almost impossible for them not to have - but just because MS believes they are in the clear does not mean they are and more than that they may well be in the clear legally but that still dorles not mean they are doing the right thing...
- yunohn 5y agoSeriously? This thread is based on an article where a GitHub-competitor’s developer is arguing that Microsoft/GitHub have not thought through the legal implications. The comments section is another bunch of legal armchair speculation. Regardless, if you’d rather discuss morals - I don’t believe what they’ve done is immoral or wrong either. I use Linux, and write FOSS code and contribute to the FOSS community quite regularly.
- pmlnr 5y agoHave you ever worked at an org that size? Because many devs completely fail to even consider legal, let alone actually reach out to them before they implement something.
- yunohn 5y agoI currently do and have before actually, so I'm unsure if you have? Devs can ignore legal for a very short time, but the moment you have a team working on it, you need legal approval to continue. And if there's going to be a public launch, you have an entire legal, data, and privacy team to vet it first. Put simply, there is no universe wherein MS's legal team hasn't cleared Copilot before launch, and I'm disappointed HN groupthink believes otherwise.
- pmlnr 5y agoI do work at a reasonably large one, yes. Less, then a month ago a new thing was announced, and among the comments, someone asked if legal was involved. The answer was: oh, right, we'll ask them.
- yunohn 5y agoAgain, I’m not saying all large companies have that, clearly yours doesn’t. I’m saying FAANG+MS definitely have this process, you can ask any employee how it works there.
- klelatti 5y agoThis was announced by their CEO on their corporate blog. There is 0% chance that this wasn't run past their legal team.
- addandsubtract 5y agoIf it came from the CEO, it actually might have run _past_ legal.
- klelatti 5y agoCompletely agree with the broad point on big companies. But GH is a company with a technically very engaged and informed management - I could be wrong but just blundering into this seems surprising.
- kethinov 5y agoWhat I'm saying is given the frequency that consensus positions that large institutions support get overturned, I think it is wise to treat heterodox opinions more charitably. OP's blog post could be wrong, but it should be refuted on the merits rather than with a credibility argument.
- klelatti 5y agoI actually rather support the OP's position - all my comments above were on the likely processes inside GH rather than the merits or otherwise of their position.