3 ms·
Wow, that's quite a strawman/bait-and-switch from the article; thanks for highlighting it. If Copilot is just a machine -- a glorified typewriter -- then the m
by b3morales 5y ago
Wow, that's quite a strawman/bait-and-switch from the article; thanks for highlighting it.
If Copilot is just a machine -- a glorified typewriter -- then the machine's operator is responsible for its output.
Or does the author seriously want to claim that any code added via Copilot to a proprietary codebase would not be proprietary as well? If that were true, Copilot's userbase is going to be...limited.
- syshum 5y agoSo then we come full circle on infringement, if the operator is responsible for the code produced by co-pilot then the articles claim that is not infringement because it is machine created fails, as the operator is responsible The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. You seem to imply that the copyright of all code made by co-pilot is copyrighted by the operator of co-pilot thus would then fall under copyright law, and thus would/could be infringing
- b3morales 5y ago> The argument in the article is that all code made by co-pilot is not infringement because there is no copyright attached. Right; I don't see how that's even remotely a tenable argument. I think the article is trying to eat its cake and have it too.