4 ms·

The exaggerations won't stop now, will they? First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Secondly,

by qayxc 5y ago

The exaggerations won't stop now, will they? First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Secondly, the consequences of accidentally copying code by means of using this tool are pretty minor. The author acts as if copypasta from StackOverflow, RosettaCode and similar sites is NOT a daily occurrence (and can't even be checked in the case of closed source software). Fake gurus like Siraj Raval [0] can manage to literally steal - as in copying other people's work and claiming it as their own - for years without consequences and face ZERO legal backlash even after being exposed. Some of his repos had hundreds or even thousands of stars and forks on GitHub, while the original authors he copied from got no attention or credit at all. If this is what people can get away with who do this knowingly and deliberately and with entire projects, then I really have to wonder what the fuss is about when an ML model occasionally spits out a few lines of code snippets verbatim from its training set. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A

Hamuko 5y ago
All stuff on Stack Overflow has a CC BY-SA license though, so the license burden is quite minor. Meanwhile most stuff on GitHub is (most likely still) unlicensed, meaning that it cannot be used in any way.
- pantsforbirds 5y ago
  How often is code submitted on stack overflow copied from github or other sources though?
remram 5y ago
StackOverflow is explicitly CC-BY-SA which makes it easy to comply (e.g. link to the answer in a comment, use a compatible license).
- qayxc 5y ago
  And who checks that the code snippets didn't come or were derived from code licensed under a different license?
alok-g 5y ago
Your arguments may be valid from a common sense standpoint. However, they may not exactly be valid from a legal standpoint as explained below: >> First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Your comment is about how often it is happening. That it happens as the OP shows via examples itself makes this a concern. It's not necessarily a question of quantity but of existence. At least when I last checked [1], Github itself [2] notes: "Does GitHub Copilot recite code from the training set? GitHub Copilot is a code synthesizer, not a search engine: the vast majority of the code that it suggests is uniquely generated and has never been seen before. We found that about 0.1% of the time, the suggestion may contain some snippets that are verbatim from the training set. ..." In other words, 0.1% of the time snippers are copied verbatim, a percentage of which may be copyright violations (not everything is). >> The author acts as if copypasta from StackOverflow, RosettaCode and similar sites is NOT a daily occurrence Those may be violations too. That it is a common practice does not turn it into a non-violation. >> Fake gurus like Siraj Raval [0] can manage to literally steal That someone escaped does not imply that the laws are now somehow invalid. >> I really have to wonder what the fuss is about when an ML model occasionally spits out a few lines of code snippets verbatim from its training set. I agree. AI here is posing a challenge which should lead to refinement of the law, as I have explained in another context too [3]. If this is indeed needed, don't expect this to happen some anytime soon. --- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736089 [2] https://copilot.github.com/ https://copilot.github.com/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27635481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27635481
- qayxc 5y ago
  > Those may be violations too. That it is a common practice does not turn it into a non-violation. I'm not disputing that. What I'm asking is, why is this particular 0.1% small snippets case such a big deal all of a sudden, when it obviously IS common practice (within the bounds of small code snippets)?
  - alok-g 5y ago
    You are right in asking that question. What just happens that when there are thousands of small violators, it's not easy for lawsuits to proceed. When there's a central entity involved, Github in this case, there is someone discrete to be challenged or talked about. What Github has done is that they have not claimed rights over the generated code, and have passed on the responsibility to the developer/entity using the generated code. In other words, they are supplying tool that can make copies, not necessarily violating the copyright themselves {Foonote 1}. So the Betamax ruling can come into play here, AFAIK. What's thereby needed is that the developers now need to be educated about it, which is what the articles like the OP will end up doing. The developers often aren't well-educated about this stuff themselves, and presume that using generated code is just fine. See how I was downvoted here, as an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27735484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27735484 {Footnote 1}: Whether the Github CoPilot model itself is violating copyrights is another matter. If the training data has included AGPL-licensed code, even that may be an violation. However, several other licenses would not be violated till the model is "distributed".

by qayxc 5y ago

Hamuko 5y ago

All stuff on Stack Overflow has a CC BY-SA license though, so the license burden is quite minor. Meanwhile most stuff on GitHub is (most likely still) unlicensed, meaning that it cannot be used in any way.

pantsforbirds 5y ago
How often is code submitted on stack overflow copied from github or other sources though?

remram 5y ago

StackOverflow is explicitly CC-BY-SA which makes it easy to comply (e.g. link to the answer in a comment, use a compatible license).

qayxc 5y ago
And who checks that the code snippets didn't come or were derived from code licensed under a different license?

alok-g 5y ago

Your arguments may be valid from a common sense standpoint. However, they may not exactly be valid from a legal standpoint as explained below: >> First of all, it's not as if CoPilot spits out verbatim replica of training data on every other prompt. Your comment is about how often it is happening. That it happens as the OP shows via examples itself makes this a concern. It's not necessarily a question of quantity but of existence. At least when I last checked [1], Github itself [2] notes: "Does GitHub Copilot recite code from the training set? GitHub Copilot is a code synthesizer, not a search engine: the vast majority of the code that it suggests is uniquely generated and has never been seen before. We found that about 0.1% of the time, the suggestion may contain some snippets that are verbatim from the training set. ..." In other words, 0.1% of the time snippers are copied verbatim, a percentage of which may be copyright violations (not everything is). >> The author acts as if copypasta from StackOverflow, RosettaCode and similar sites is NOT a daily occurrence Those may be violations too. That it is a common practice does not turn it into a non-violation. >> Fake gurus like Siraj Raval [0] can manage to literally steal That someone escaped does not imply that the laws are now somehow invalid. >> I really have to wonder what the fuss is about when an ML model occasionally spits out a few lines of code snippets verbatim from its training set. I agree. AI here is posing a challenge which should lead to refinement of the law, as I have explained in another context too [3]. If this is indeed needed, don't expect this to happen some anytime soon. --- [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736089 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27736089 [2] https://copilot.github.com/ https://copilot.github.com/ [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27635481 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27635481

qayxc 5y ago
> Those may be violations too. That it is a common practice does not turn it into a non-violation. I'm not disputing that. What I'm asking is, why is this particular 0.1% small snippets case such a big deal all of a sudden, when it obviously IS common practice (within the bounds of small code snippets)?
- alok-g 5y ago
  You are right in asking that question. What just happens that when there are thousands of small violators, it's not easy for lawsuits to proceed. When there's a central entity involved, Github in this case, there is someone discrete to be challenged or talked about. What Github has done is that they have not claimed rights over the generated code, and have passed on the responsibility to the developer/entity using the generated code. In other words, they are supplying tool that can make copies, not necessarily violating the copyright themselves {Foonote 1}. So the Betamax ruling can come into play here, AFAIK. What's thereby needed is that the developers now need to be educated about it, which is what the articles like the OP will end up doing. The developers often aren't well-educated about this stuff themselves, and presume that using generated code is just fine. See how I was downvoted here, as an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27735484 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27735484 {Footnote 1}: Whether the Github CoPilot model itself is violating copyrights is another matter. If the training data has included AGPL-licensed code, even that may be an violation. However, several other licenses would not be violated till the model is "distributed".