5 ms·

1. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub. 2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists. 3. This is just a smart tool so you don't have to figure out

1. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub. 2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists. 3. This is just a smart tool so you don't have to figure out yourself what to copy&paste (in the best case) and save a lot of time. Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this. What is broken are copyright and patent laws in the 21st century.

IdiocyInAction 4y ago
I don't think that something like CoPilot is what most GH users had in mind when they published their code. Also, licenses exist (which CP demonstrably doesn't give a shit about).
zufallsheld 4y ago
As to your first point, there are many repositories on github that the author of code did not upload there or where not all contributors to the code are on github or agreed to let their work be used in such a case.
- redox99 4y ago
  That's really no different than somebody uploading proprietary code they don't own (stolen, leaked, whatever reason etc) on Github. Github has to assume that you are allowed to do so. What are they going to do otherwise, somehow manually verify that each repository is legit? Now you might say, what about GPL code you don't own. You are allowed to redistribute it (upload to github). But because you are not the owner you can't license it to Github under new terms (that allow them to use it for ML training). But the question still is, is there anything in the GPL that forbids it's code being used for ML training? Even if the generated model is proprietary, has no attributions, etc?
  - megous 4y ago
    Ok, takedown requests exists. Say Qualcomm finally wises up and asks github to takedown a copy of the millions lines of their super proprietary 4G modem firmware implementation from github. Will github retrain the model after each such takedown? :D If not, then it's kinda stupid to argue the point about the lack of knowledge, since lack or not lack of knowledge clearly doesn't matter. Github will happily continue using confidential code even from trigger happy companies like Qualcomm for copilot.
    - redox99 4y ago
      I guess they would add some kind of filter to copilot output that removes results that clearly come from code that was DMCAd. It's kind of like some employee that worked at Qualcomm and has seen the code. Do you retrain him (aka hit his head until he forgets) after leaving the company? The comparison might seem silly but as AI advances I expect more and more arguments (especially in court) to come from analogies of humans and AIs.
      - megous 4y ago
        What kind of filter? I thought copilot does not output the input data verbatim. Creating an output filter based on millions lines of DMCAd code that would not cripple the copilot output completely at the same time, sounds like one of those hard problems. Especially if there's no agreed upon definition of copyright "violation" here.
keraf 4y ago
The point of this Tweet is about licensing. When using an MIT licensed library for example, you would have to give attribution. But you can easily rewrite portion of that library yourself using Copilot, which could potentially use code from the initial lib, without any attribution or whatsoever. It's even more problematic with licenses such as the GPL. I guess Copilot could address this by checking the licenses of the projects it uses. Even when combining code, it could pull in the required attribution or avoid GPL licensed code (unless enabled) for example.
dmix 4y ago
> Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this 90% of Twitter is just inventing new ways to whine about things
- ParetoOptimal 4y ago
  There's some truth there, but there is more negative in outright dismissing the uncomfortable but important ethical dilemmas one might be introduced to.
teakettle42 4y ago
> Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this. Tell me you regularly plagiarize without telling me you regularly plagiarize.
- ThereIsNoWorry 4y ago
  Code plagiarization is not a thing by all practical purposes (it's even almost impossible to go to court with that for very obvious reasons). And that's good. Because with that insane lockdown of "Intellectual Property" nothing would ever get done. So, think what you want.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > Code plagiarization is not a thing by all practical purposes Of course it is. Plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.” It’s unethical and it will get you fired at any reputable company.
    - ThereIsNoWorry 4y ago
      Ok, then there doesn't exist a single reputable company with a tech division and we're all unethical. Have a nice unethical day.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > Ok, then there doesn't exist a single reputable company with a tech division and we're all unethical. Have a nice unethical day. I’m deeply disturbed that you think this form of plagiarism is universal — I can assure you that is not the case. I work at a FANG currently, and plagiarism is absolutely not tolerated. In fact, plagiarism has been considered a fireable offense at every other company I’ve worked at over my 25 year long career, and prior to that, considered a serious form of academic misconduct in school. It’s clearly unethical and I’ve never plagiarized in my life. I’ve only run into one instance of someone else plagiarizing code in my career, and that individual was fired.
SahAssar 4y ago
> 1. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub. Are you saying that I would need all the original authors consent to upload a repo to github even if I include all the original attribution and licenses? Because what you are implying is that when uploading I'm granting github a license far outside the bounds of the license included, which only all the contributors can do. For example, would the linux project need to contact each and every contributor ever to upload a mirror to github, since their contributions were under GPL but you are implying that the license given to github is much, much broader? This would make any project not originally started on github and with a few contributors basically impossible to host there. > 2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists. The question is who is doing the infringement here. Github copilot is obfuscating the copying and telling it's users that the code is theirs to use, own, etc. as they please but is also taking large chunks of code it does not have the right to redistribute, even less grant licenses to.

IdiocyInAction 4y ago

I don't think that something like CoPilot is what most GH users had in mind when they published their code. Also, licenses exist (which CP demonstrably doesn't give a shit about).

zufallsheld 4y ago

As to your first point, there are many repositories on github that the author of code did not upload there or where not all contributors to the code are on github or agreed to let their work be used in such a case.

redox99 4y ago
That's really no different than somebody uploading proprietary code they don't own (stolen, leaked, whatever reason etc) on Github. Github has to assume that you are allowed to do so. What are they going to do otherwise, somehow manually verify that each repository is legit? Now you might say, what about GPL code you don't own. You are allowed to redistribute it (upload to github). But because you are not the owner you can't license it to Github under new terms (that allow them to use it for ML training). But the question still is, is there anything in the GPL that forbids it's code being used for ML training? Even if the generated model is proprietary, has no attributions, etc?
- megous 4y ago
  Ok, takedown requests exists. Say Qualcomm finally wises up and asks github to takedown a copy of the millions lines of their super proprietary 4G modem firmware implementation from github. Will github retrain the model after each such takedown? :D If not, then it's kinda stupid to argue the point about the lack of knowledge, since lack or not lack of knowledge clearly doesn't matter. Github will happily continue using confidential code even from trigger happy companies like Qualcomm for copilot.
  - redox99 4y ago
    I guess they would add some kind of filter to copilot output that removes results that clearly come from code that was DMCAd. It's kind of like some employee that worked at Qualcomm and has seen the code. Do you retrain him (aka hit his head until he forgets) after leaving the company? The comparison might seem silly but as AI advances I expect more and more arguments (especially in court) to come from analogies of humans and AIs.
    - megous 4y ago
      What kind of filter? I thought copilot does not output the input data verbatim. Creating an output filter based on millions lines of DMCAd code that would not cripple the copilot output completely at the same time, sounds like one of those hard problems. Especially if there's no agreed upon definition of copyright "violation" here.

keraf 4y ago

The point of this Tweet is about licensing. When using an MIT licensed library for example, you would have to give attribution. But you can easily rewrite portion of that library yourself using Copilot, which could potentially use code from the initial lib, without any attribution or whatsoever. It's even more problematic with licenses such as the GPL. I guess Copilot could address this by checking the licenses of the projects it uses. Even when combining code, it could pull in the required attribution or avoid GPL licensed code (unless enabled) for example.

dmix 4y ago

> Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this 90% of Twitter is just inventing new ways to whine about things

ParetoOptimal 4y ago
There's some truth there, but there is more negative in outright dismissing the uncomfortable but important ethical dilemmas one might be introduced to.

teakettle42 4y ago

> Sometimes I truly wonder how people can genuinely be upset about things like this. Tell me you regularly plagiarize without telling me you regularly plagiarize.

ThereIsNoWorry 4y ago
Code plagiarization is not a thing by all practical purposes (it's even almost impossible to go to court with that for very obvious reasons). And that's good. Because with that insane lockdown of "Intellectual Property" nothing would ever get done. So, think what you want.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > Code plagiarization is not a thing by all practical purposes Of course it is. Plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.” It’s unethical and it will get you fired at any reputable company.
  - ThereIsNoWorry 4y ago
    Ok, then there doesn't exist a single reputable company with a tech division and we're all unethical. Have a nice unethical day.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      > Ok, then there doesn't exist a single reputable company with a tech division and we're all unethical. Have a nice unethical day. I’m deeply disturbed that you think this form of plagiarism is universal — I can assure you that is not the case. I work at a FANG currently, and plagiarism is absolutely not tolerated. In fact, plagiarism has been considered a fireable offense at every other company I’ve worked at over my 25 year long career, and prior to that, considered a serious form of academic misconduct in school. It’s clearly unethical and I’ve never plagiarized in my life. I’ve only run into one instance of someone else plagiarizing code in my career, and that individual was fired.

SahAssar 4y ago

> 1. You most likely agreed to that by using GitHub. Are you saying that I would need all the original authors consent to upload a repo to github even if I include all the original attribution and licenses? Because what you are implying is that when uploading I'm granting github a license far outside the bounds of the license included, which only all the contributors can do. For example, would the linux project need to contact each and every contributor ever to upload a mirror to github, since their contributions were under GPL but you are implying that the license given to github is much, much broader? This would make any project not originally started on github and with a few contributors basically impossible to host there. > 2. Copy&Pasting Code by manual search exists. The question is who is doing the infringement here. Github copilot is obfuscating the copying and telling it's users that the code is theirs to use, own, etc. as they please but is also taking large chunks of code it does not have the right to redistribute, even less grant licenses to.