7 ms·

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 int

by 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
      A common tech-bro fallacy. We understand exactly what is happening at the base level of a statistics package. We can point to the specific instructions it is undertaking. We haven't the slightest understanding of what "intelligence" is in the human sense, because it's wrapped up with totally mysterious and unsolved problems about the nature of thought and experience more generally.
      - solipsism 5y ago
        The fallacy is the god-of-the-gaps "logic" of assuming there's some hand-wavey phenomenon that's qualitatively different from anything we currently understand, just because reality has so much complexity that we are far from reproducing it. You're assuming there's a soul and looking for it, even though you don't call it that. Intelligence is mysterious in the same way chemical biology is mysterious (though perhaps to another degree of complexity)... It's not mysterious in the way people getting sick was mysterious before germ theory. There's no reason to think there's some crucial missing phenomenon without which we can't even reason about intelligence.
  - randallsquared 5y ago
    To be fair, they themselves referred to intelligence as "ill-defined"...
- bogwog 5y ago
  > 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. You mean in the same way that google.com isn't "just a database"? If Copilot isn't intelligent, then what makes it more special than a search engine? How is Copilot not just Limewire but for code? I could understand the argument that, if Copilot really is intelligent or sentient or something like that, then what it is producing is as original as what a human can produce (although, humans still have to respect copyright laws). However, I haven't seen anyone even attempt to make a serious argument like that.
  - freeone3000 5y ago
    It can produce code snippets that were never seen by generating fragments from various sources and combining them in a new way. This makes it different from a search engine, which only returns existing items.
    - bogwog 5y ago
      Is it producing code (by which I mean creating/inventing new code by itself), or is it just combining existing code? Because to me it seems like the latter is a more appropriate description. * AI searches for code in its neural-net-encoded database using your search terms (ex: "fast inverse square root") * AI parses and generates AST from the snippet it found * AI parses and generates AST from your existing codebase * AI merges the ASTs in a way that compiles (it inserts snippet at your cursor, renames variables/function/class names to match existing ones in your program, etc) * AI converts AST back into source code Is AI intelligently producing new code in that example? Because I don't think it is. What would be an interesting test of whether it can actually generate code is if it were tasked with implementing a new algorithm that isn't in the training set at all, and could not possibly be implemented by simply merging existing code snippets together. Maybe by describing a detailed imaginary protocol that does nothing useful, but requires some complicated logic, abstract concepts, and math. A person can implement an algorithm they've never seen before by applying critical thinking and creativity (and maybe domain knowledge). If an AI can't do that, then you cannot credibly say that it's writing original code, because the only thing it has ever read, and the only thing it will ever write, is other people's code.
- eterevsky 5y ago
  If you look at it this way, your brain is also "just" computational statics. (Or to be precise, it might be, since we don't yet know in all the details how it works).
  - TaupeRanger 5y ago
    Hint: it has been said hundreds of times since the advent of computer science that the brain is "just" [some simple thing that we already understand]. That notion has never once helped us in any way.
eterevsky 5y ago
Big part of work of almost any software engineer is finding similar already written parts of code and adapting them. How is this different?
- bogwog 5y ago
  Because you can't sue an AI
throwaway984393 5y ago
> actually learning and producing new things using intelligence People have been trying to accomplish that for 65 years. We're not even close. It's the software equivalent of cold fusion (with less scientific rigor)
Houshalter 5y ago
How do you know it's "just a code search engine"? Or "not AI" or "not learning and producing new things", or all the other claims people are making about it? All of these are essentially untestable statements. It has memorized one thing. That doesn't prove it's not intelligent. If anything it's the other way around, we would expect an intelligent being to be capable of memorization. All I can think of is the Turing test and the AI effect. Eventually we will have an AI that is capable of writing code indistinguishable from a human, and people will STILL say it's "not AI" and "just a code search engine", etc. Obviously this isn't there yet, but it's clearly getting closer.
alisonkisk 5y ago
When then you ask, what is 2+2=... Is 5 a more intelligent answer than 4, because it is new? Copilot is an autocomplete engine, not creative writing.
- eitland 5y ago
  But if it wasn't copying literally, why was the comments included literally?
areeh 5y ago
I think it warrants investigating exactly how and when Copilot reproduces code, but using one example to write it off as just copy and pasting seems excessive. Also when talking about rights, whether or not Copilot copies doesn't seem sufficient to make a call. For instance, if it has to be coerced by the programmer to produce these kinds of snippets in an obvious way, then it seems fine to lay the blame on the programmer similar to when using regular autocompletion (or copy+paste for that matter).

by bogwog 5y ago

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
    A common tech-bro fallacy. We understand exactly what is happening at the base level of a statistics package. We can point to the specific instructions it is undertaking. We haven't the slightest understanding of what "intelligence" is in the human sense, because it's wrapped up with totally mysterious and unsolved problems about the nature of thought and experience more generally.
    - solipsism 5y ago
      The fallacy is the god-of-the-gaps "logic" of assuming there's some hand-wavey phenomenon that's qualitatively different from anything we currently understand, just because reality has so much complexity that we are far from reproducing it. You're assuming there's a soul and looking for it, even though you don't call it that. Intelligence is mysterious in the same way chemical biology is mysterious (though perhaps to another degree of complexity)... It's not mysterious in the way people getting sick was mysterious before germ theory. There's no reason to think there's some crucial missing phenomenon without which we can't even reason about intelligence.
- randallsquared 5y ago
  To be fair, they themselves referred to intelligence as "ill-defined"...
bogwog 5y ago
> 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. You mean in the same way that google.com isn't "just a database"? If Copilot isn't intelligent, then what makes it more special than a search engine? How is Copilot not just Limewire but for code? I could understand the argument that, if Copilot really is intelligent or sentient or something like that, then what it is producing is as original as what a human can produce (although, humans still have to respect copyright laws). However, I haven't seen anyone even attempt to make a serious argument like that.
- freeone3000 5y ago
  It can produce code snippets that were never seen by generating fragments from various sources and combining them in a new way. This makes it different from a search engine, which only returns existing items.
  - bogwog 5y ago
    Is it producing code (by which I mean creating/inventing new code by itself), or is it just combining existing code? Because to me it seems like the latter is a more appropriate description. * AI searches for code in its neural-net-encoded database using your search terms (ex: "fast inverse square root") * AI parses and generates AST from the snippet it found * AI parses and generates AST from your existing codebase * AI merges the ASTs in a way that compiles (it inserts snippet at your cursor, renames variables/function/class names to match existing ones in your program, etc) * AI converts AST back into source code Is AI intelligently producing new code in that example? Because I don't think it is. What would be an interesting test of whether it can actually generate code is if it were tasked with implementing a new algorithm that isn't in the training set at all, and could not possibly be implemented by simply merging existing code snippets together. Maybe by describing a detailed imaginary protocol that does nothing useful, but requires some complicated logic, abstract concepts, and math. A person can implement an algorithm they've never seen before by applying critical thinking and creativity (and maybe domain knowledge). If an AI can't do that, then you cannot credibly say that it's writing original code, because the only thing it has ever read, and the only thing it will ever write, is other people's code.
eterevsky 5y ago
If you look at it this way, your brain is also "just" computational statics. (Or to be precise, it might be, since we don't yet know in all the details how it works).
- TaupeRanger 5y ago
  Hint: it has been said hundreds of times since the advent of computer science that the brain is "just" [some simple thing that we already understand]. That notion has never once helped us in any way.

eterevsky 5y ago

Big part of work of almost any software engineer is finding similar already written parts of code and adapting them. How is this different?

bogwog 5y ago
Because you can't sue an AI

throwaway984393 5y ago

> actually learning and producing new things using intelligence People have been trying to accomplish that for 65 years. We're not even close. It's the software equivalent of cold fusion (with less scientific rigor)

Houshalter 5y ago

How do you know it's "just a code search engine"? Or "not AI" or "not learning and producing new things", or all the other claims people are making about it? All of these are essentially untestable statements. It has memorized one thing. That doesn't prove it's not intelligent. If anything it's the other way around, we would expect an intelligent being to be capable of memorization. All I can think of is the Turing test and the AI effect. Eventually we will have an AI that is capable of writing code indistinguishable from a human, and people will STILL say it's "not AI" and "just a code search engine", etc. Obviously this isn't there yet, but it's clearly getting closer.

alisonkisk 5y ago

When then you ask, what is 2+2=... Is 5 a more intelligent answer than 4, because it is new? Copilot is an autocomplete engine, not creative writing.

eitland 5y ago
But if it wasn't copying literally, why was the comments included literally?

areeh 5y ago

I think it warrants investigating exactly how and when Copilot reproduces code, but using one example to write it off as just copy and pasting seems excessive. Also when talking about rights, whether or not Copilot copies doesn't seem sufficient to make a call. For instance, if it has to be coerced by the programmer to produce these kinds of snippets in an obvious way, then it seems fine to lay the blame on the programmer similar to when using regular autocompletion (or copy+paste for that matter).