6 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 question that br

> 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.

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.