7 ms·

The excerpt from Quake code is literally one of the most famous functions out there. There is no wonder that it was reproduced verbatim. The share of such code,

The excerpt from Quake code is literally one of the most famous functions out there. There is no wonder that it was reproduced verbatim. The share of such code, according to Github is really small. It would be quite straightforward to write an additional filter that would check the generated code against the training corpus to exclude exact copies.

tovej 5y ago
Would it? What would the threshold be? Twenty lines copied verbatim? Ten lines copied verbatim? What about boiler plate like ten #include statements at the beginning of a file? Or licenses in comments? What if someone has a one-liner that's unique enough to be protected by copyright?
- hobs 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.#Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... I think that was a big part of the Google Vs Oracle case - how much copying constitutes an infringement? It looks like they made a fairly complex rubric to apply in the future, it appears it would be on a case by case basis.
e3bc54b2 5y ago
> The excerpt from Quake code is literally one of the most famous functions out there. There is no wonder that it was reproduced verbatim. The question that brings is that this was found because it is so famous, but what if it is repeating Joe Schmoe's weekend library project, but we will never know because its not famous?
- 0-_-0 5y ago
  Because someone already checked, and it doesn't: https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio... Every literally quoted part that could infringe appears at least 10 times in the training data
  - Zababa 5y ago
    Someone that works at Github already checked. I think asking for a more independant study is fair.
  - b3morales 5y ago
    This doesn't stand on its own as a defense: perhaps the 10 inputs were legitimate copies of a single source. They could be forked repos that were properly following the original's license, for example.
    - leereeves 5y ago
      Or 10 different GPL projects that legitimately share code that remains copyrighted and protected by the GPL. Or 10 obscure projects that illegitimately copied code but haven't been caught. Clearly, "10 other people did it" is no defense at all.
      - duskwuff 5y ago
        It might not even be "10 other people". For projects which originated outside Github, it's common for multiple users to have independently uploaded copies of the project. There's probably at least 10 users who have pushed copies of the GCC codebase to Github, for example.
        a1369209993 5y ago
        > at least 10 users who have pushed copies of the GCC codebase That is "10 other people". (Although your point stands, since there doesn't (or at least shouldn't to the point of criminal espionage) be any strong impediment preventing one person from creating 10 different accounts.)
        duskwuff 5y ago
        It isn't "10+ other people wrote that", though. It's the same work, by the same person, being represented 10+ times in the training corpus.
bogwog 5y ago
But the fact that it did that at all should be proof that Copilot is, in fact, copy and pasting rather than actually learning and producing new things using intelligence. This is a code search engine with the ability to integrate search results into your language syntax and program structure. The database is just stored in the neural network. It’s definitely an impressive and interesting project with useful applications, but it’s not an excuse to violate people’s rights.
- cartoonworld 5y ago
  It also shows that copilot knows nothing about copyright, and is incapable of considering copyright as such. I'm not sure if I would characterize as a "database stored in a neural net", but that is definitely something to deeply consider.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- TaupeRanger 5y ago
  This is all just computational statistics. Why in the world would you invoke ill-defined anthropocentric terminology like "intelligence"? Of course a statistics program isn't "using intelligence". But it's also not exactly just a database. It contains contextual relationships as seen with things like GPT that are beyond what a typical database implementation would be capable of.
  - sdfzug 5y ago
    Define intelligence
    - solipsism 5y ago
      Also define "computational statistics". It'll be fun to try and fail to draw a clear line between the two.
      - TaupeRanger 5y ago
happymellon 5y ago
Pretty sure if someone trained a code suggestion tool with Windows source, Microsoft would claim that a single similar character being the same is grounds for copyright infringement. They are putting GPL code in non-gpled codebases. Is it okay to take sections of other people's source code and use it on yours, if you just got it as a suggestion?
- dboreham 5y ago
  The true test will be whether MS indemnifies me against claims of copyright (and patent) infringement due to use of their tool.
  - happymellon 5y ago
    This will be interesting to watch.

tovej 5y ago

Would it? What would the threshold be? Twenty lines copied verbatim? Ten lines copied verbatim? What about boiler plate like ten #include statements at the beginning of a file? Or licenses in comments? What if someone has a one-liner that's unique enough to be protected by copyright?

hobs 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.#Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_... I think that was a big part of the Google Vs Oracle case - how much copying constitutes an infringement? It looks like they made a fairly complex rubric to apply in the future, it appears it would be on a case by case basis.

e3bc54b2 5y ago

> The excerpt from Quake code is literally one of the most famous functions out there. There is no wonder that it was reproduced verbatim. The question that brings is that this was found because it is so famous, but what if it is repeating Joe Schmoe's weekend library project, but we will never know because its not famous?

0-_-0 5y ago
Because someone already checked, and it doesn't: https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio... Every literally quoted part that could infringe appears at least 10 times in the training data
- Zababa 5y ago
  Someone that works at Github already checked. I think asking for a more independant study is fair.
- b3morales 5y ago
  This doesn't stand on its own as a defense: perhaps the 10 inputs were legitimate copies of a single source. They could be forked repos that were properly following the original's license, for example.
  - leereeves 5y ago
    Or 10 different GPL projects that legitimately share code that remains copyrighted and protected by the GPL. Or 10 obscure projects that illegitimately copied code but haven't been caught. Clearly, "10 other people did it" is no defense at all.
    - duskwuff 5y ago
      It might not even be "10 other people". For projects which originated outside Github, it's common for multiple users to have independently uploaded copies of the project. There's probably at least 10 users who have pushed copies of the GCC codebase to Github, for example.
      - a1369209993 5y ago
        > at least 10 users who have pushed copies of the GCC codebase That is "10 other people". (Although your point stands, since there doesn't (or at least shouldn't to the point of criminal espionage) be any strong impediment preventing one person from creating 10 different accounts.)
        duskwuff 5y ago
        It isn't "10+ other people wrote that", though. It's the same work, by the same person, being represented 10+ times in the training corpus.

bogwog 5y ago

But the fact that it did that at all should be proof that Copilot is, in fact, copy and pasting rather than actually learning and producing new things using intelligence. This is a code search engine with the ability to integrate search results into your language syntax and program structure. The database is just stored in the neural network. It’s definitely an impressive and interesting project with useful applications, but it’s not an excuse to violate people’s rights.

cartoonworld 5y ago
It also shows that copilot knows nothing about copyright, and is incapable of considering copyright as such. I'm not sure if I would characterize as a "database stored in a neural net", but that is definitely something to deeply consider.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
TaupeRanger 5y ago
This is all just computational statistics. Why in the world would you invoke ill-defined anthropocentric terminology like "intelligence"? Of course a statistics program isn't "using intelligence". But it's also not exactly just a database. It contains contextual relationships as seen with things like GPT that are beyond what a typical database implementation would be capable of.
- sdfzug 5y ago
  Define intelligence
  - solipsism 5y ago
    Also define "computational statistics". It'll be fun to try and fail to draw a clear line between the two.
    - TaupeRanger 5y ago

happymellon 5y ago

Pretty sure if someone trained a code suggestion tool with Windows source, Microsoft would claim that a single similar character being the same is grounds for copyright infringement. They are putting GPL code in non-gpled codebases. Is it okay to take sections of other people's source code and use it on yours, if you just got it as a suggestion?

dboreham 5y ago
The true test will be whether MS indemnifies me against claims of copyright (and patent) infringement due to use of their tool.
- happymellon 5y ago
  This will be interesting to watch.