4 ms·
That "issue" is unrelated. You've just hijacked the thread to talk about it. Also the point you're making is controversial, and definitely isn't widely agreed
by phendrenad2 5y ago
That "issue" is unrelated. You've just hijacked the thread to talk about it.
Also the point you're making is controversial, and definitely isn't widely agreed on. As a human, I can read public code on Github, and use my internal neural network (brain) to regurgitate sections of code, and don't need to attribute anyone (who can say which codebase I'm recalling code from? I certainly can't). So a neural network doing the same thing, but external to a human, is certainly questionanble, but it isn't a cut-and-dry case of copying without attribution.
- 37ef_ced3 5y ago"Unrelated"? Microsoft's automated violation of "no use without attribution" licenses? You can't see the connection? Please. Surely it's obvious to everyone but you.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Zababa 5y agoYou're making a false equivalence between copilot and a human brain. Neural networks are programs, programs don't have the same rights as humans. Implying the opposite is even more controversial than saying that copilot should respect licenses. Also, humans sometimes have limitations on what code they should have seen. It's common in the emulator community to forbid anyone that has seen proprietary code from working on black-box implementations to avoid legal issues.