5 ms·

Technically, programmers search, copy and modify code all the time. One might argue copilot puts into software an algorithm that humans are already doing. Soft

by yaseer 4y ago

Technically, programmers search, copy and modify code all the time. One might argue copilot puts into software an algorithm that humans are already doing. Software like that is usually inevitable. Still, it sucks there's no benefit for the contributors. The most ethical thing I can think of is some kinda 'Spotify-like' revenue sharing model, based on how often their code is used by others. Not that they'd ever implement that if they can get away with it!

kaibee 4y ago
> The most ethical thing I can think of is some kinda 'Spotify-like' revenue sharing model, based on how often their code is used by others. Not that they'd ever implement that if they can get away with it! Based on my understanding of how NNs work, I'm not sure its even possible to implement something like that.
omnicognate 4y ago
> One might argue copilot puts into software an algorithm that humans are already doing. That argument only works if you think what Copilot is doing is meaningfully similar to what humans are doing. The debate about how these models relate to human thought might have legal implications. As I understand it (IANAL) copyright doesn't protect ideas and concepts. It protects the content itself. In theory, if I read some copyrighted work, understand some idea in it and then create a new work using that idea, without copying that original work, then that is not a derivative work. (I think this is at least how it's supposed to work - would love to be corrected if that's wrong.) So if I took a copyright work and rot-13ed it before distributing copies, I think that would be clear copyright violation, but if I made my own works using concepts I gleaned from reading it, it wouldn't be. So should Copilot be treated like the rot13 algorithm or like me understanding concepts and generating new works using them? That sounds like a fascinating legal debate to be had.
teakettle42 4y ago
> Technically, programmers search, copy and modify code all the time. When following the license terms, preserving the original copyright, etc, sure. However, honest, ethical people (including programmers) do not plagiarize. Copying and pasting code without attribution is plagiarism. Doing it without following the licensing terms is a copyright violation.
- redox99 4y ago
  I don't consider copying a 3 liner from stack overflow and not writing an attribution plagiarizing (regardless if technically speaking it is or isn't according to the law).
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Confirming to the license is also required; iirc, SO requires attribution under the CC-SA license.
    - redox99 4y ago
      > Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion, since there isn't some universal body that establishes exactly what is ethical and what isn't. And as I said in my previous comment, "I don't consider". > You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Often times a three liner can not be changed in any way, and is the only solution to a problem. In some cases you may be able to change it only in terms of indentation and variable names (in others you can't even change that). But assuming you can do that, it makes no sense at all just changing indentation and variable names just for the sake of changing it. > Confirming to the license is also required; iirc, SO requires attribution under the CC-SA license. As I said I'm not talking about the legalities. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55319570/how-can-i-raise-a-number-to-power-in-javascript https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55319570/how-can-i-raise... Are you going to attribute that every time you use Math.pow?
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion Plagiarism being unethical is just my opinion? > Are you going to attribute that every time you use Math.pow? Does a simple 2-ary function call of a well-defined API qualify as “taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”? If not, then it’s not plagiarism.

by yaseer 4y ago

kaibee 4y ago

> The most ethical thing I can think of is some kinda 'Spotify-like' revenue sharing model, based on how often their code is used by others. Not that they'd ever implement that if they can get away with it! Based on my understanding of how NNs work, I'm not sure its even possible to implement something like that.

omnicognate 4y ago

> One might argue copilot puts into software an algorithm that humans are already doing. That argument only works if you think what Copilot is doing is meaningfully similar to what humans are doing. The debate about how these models relate to human thought might have legal implications. As I understand it (IANAL) copyright doesn't protect ideas and concepts. It protects the content itself. In theory, if I read some copyrighted work, understand some idea in it and then create a new work using that idea, without copying that original work, then that is not a derivative work. (I think this is at least how it's supposed to work - would love to be corrected if that's wrong.) So if I took a copyright work and rot-13ed it before distributing copies, I think that would be clear copyright violation, but if I made my own works using concepts I gleaned from reading it, it wouldn't be. So should Copilot be treated like the rot13 algorithm or like me understanding concepts and generating new works using them? That sounds like a fascinating legal debate to be had.

teakettle42 4y ago

> Technically, programmers search, copy and modify code all the time. When following the license terms, preserving the original copyright, etc, sure. However, honest, ethical people (including programmers) do not plagiarize. Copying and pasting code without attribution is plagiarism. Doing it without following the licensing terms is a copyright violation.

redox99 4y ago
I don't consider copying a 3 liner from stack overflow and not writing an attribution plagiarizing (regardless if technically speaking it is or isn't according to the law).
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Confirming to the license is also required; iirc, SO requires attribution under the CC-SA license.
  - redox99 4y ago
    > Plagiarism isn’t a legal concept, it’s an ethical one. Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion, since there isn't some universal body that establishes exactly what is ethical and what isn't. And as I said in my previous comment, "I don't consider". > You need to either attribute the source, or rewrite it in entirely your own words — just like when writing a paper. Often times a three liner can not be changed in any way, and is the only solution to a problem. In some cases you may be able to change it only in terms of indentation and variable names (in others you can't even change that). But assuming you can do that, it makes no sense at all just changing indentation and variable names just for the sake of changing it. > Confirming to the license is also required; iirc, SO requires attribution under the CC-SA license. As I said I'm not talking about the legalities. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55319570/how-can-i-raise-a-number-to-power-in-javascript https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55319570/how-can-i-raise... Are you going to attribute that every time you use Math.pow?
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > Well if it isn't a legal but an ethical concept, then that's just your opinion Plagiarism being unethical is just my opinion? > Are you going to attribute that every time you use Math.pow? Does a simple 2-ary function call of a well-defined API qualify as “taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”? If not, then it’s not plagiarism.