5 ms·

Yeah, that's definitely the impression I get from the few Copilot examples I've seen. I've not personally used Copilot so I refrained from making absolute state

Yeah, that's definitely the impression I get from the few Copilot examples I've seen. I've not personally used Copilot so I refrained from making absolute statements about its behavior in my top comment. But I think the conclusion most people are settling on is that it's definitely infringing.

pmarreck 4y ago
I've used Copilot for months and honestly it's become one of my most favorite inventions in all of programming- and this is key- even when it screws up (such as by suggesting Ruby-syntax code to autocomplete Elixir code). It tickles the "childlike joy" funnybone in me, the same one that got me into programming to begin with. I don't know how long it will take for typing "#ANSI yellow" (for example) and autocompleting to the right codes to get old, or every time it autocompletes anything considered "boilerplate," but it hasn't, yet! You know, pretty much all of programming can be summed up as "tedious labor elimination," and this tool directs that same labor elimination at the work of programming itself (I no longer have to constantly google syntax idiosyncrasies etc.), and NOW coders are pissed? I don't get it. Eat your own dog food, people, because this is what it looks and tastes like. As to the copyright infringement or licensing-violation claims, I have yet to see it autocomplete an entire algorithm correctly, or one copied verbatim from somewhere, although that could be mitigated. You still have to pay attention (kind of like Tesla autopilot), it's not going to eliminate your job.
- Longlius 4y ago
  No one is complaining about copilot making programming easier or automating it. We're upset because it's quite literally infringing on intellectual property. Infringing on intellectual property that's been set aside for the exclusive use of the commons.
  - pmarreck 4y ago
    Do you use it? Have you ever used it? How many people making negative comments about it here have actually used it? I don't actually believe many have. I suggest at least trying it out before lighting your torches. If it infringes everyone equally and everyone equally benefits from the infringement, has a net wrong actually occurred? (which of course begs the "do the ends justify the means" question...) I don't see how this is any different a form of "infringement" than me copying and pasting snippets of other peoples' code, and then modifying it to suit my particular context, without specific attribution, except that the latter is a much more laborious and time-consuming process than copilot autocomplete, and programming is all about tedium elimination
    - ryukafalz 4y ago
      > If it infringes everyone equally and everyone equally benefits from the infringement, has a net wrong actually occurred? It’s not done equally though. Copyleft code is extremely likely to be on GitHub somewhere, while internal proprietary code is often not. Copilot will thus have been trained more on the former than the latter. > I don't see how this is any different a form of "infringement" than me copying and pasting snippets of other peoples' code, and then modifying it to suit my particular context, without specific attribution It’s no different, but that is also copyright infringement.
      - pmarreck 4y ago
        > but that is also copyright infringement. so basically all of Stackoverflow is copyright infringement and has been for decades? Find me the programmer who has never either 1) copied and pasted directly from the internet, or 2) taken an idea found on the internet and massaged it for their own purposes. I mean... this is basically why programming is so lucrative IMHO. Everyone is piggybacking off of everyone else's work (at least in open source)
        ryukafalz 4y ago
        (Recent) StackOverflow contributions are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 by default (though the author can of course release it under any additional licenses they choose): https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing If the code is really sufficiently trivial (and I’d guess that most code samples you’ll find on StackOverflow are) you may have a fair use argument in the US. Generally speaking though (and especially for anything nontrivial) you need to respect the license. CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with GPLv3, though, so that helps if you’re including it in a GPLv3 codebase: https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-way-compatible-with-gplv3/ https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-...
        pmarreck 4y ago
        Define "sufficiently trivial"
  - jazzyjackson 4y ago
    god bless AI for moving human society beyond silly notions like ideas-as-property copyright was established to increase the innovation and creative will of the arts and sciences, what could increase that creative force more than an AI assistant who has seen every creative work ever made?
    - account42 4y ago
      I'd be all for returning ALL code to the commons. Except that is not what is happening here. The problem is that AI is being used to take code, which was provided to the commons under the explicit condition that anything built with it is also released under the same terms, is now being fed to a magic mystery machine to produce code that can supposedly legally be witheld from the comments. The only code that this affects is the one that was already shared - you won't see Microsoft feeding Windows and Office source code into Copilot anytime soon.
jka 4y ago
A possible response that I'd predict from GitHub would be to attribute much/all of the responsibility to the user. The argument would be along the lines of: you as the user are the one who asked the eidetic programmer (nice terminology, @bencollier49) to produce code for your project; all we did is make the programmer available to you.
- WithinReason 4y ago
  Relevant parts from the Copilot FAQ (https://github.com/features/copilot/ https://github.com/features/copilot/): Does GitHub own the code generated by GitHub Copilot? GitHub Copilot is a tool, like a compiler or a pen. GitHub does not own the suggestions GitHub Copilot generates. The code you write with GitHub Copilot’s help belongs to you, and you are responsible for it. We recommend that you carefully test, review, and vet the code before pushing it to production, as you would with any code you write that incorporates material you did not independently originate. Does GitHub Copilot recite code from the training set? The vast majority of the code that GitHub Copilot suggests has never been seen before. Our latest internal research shows that about 1% of the time, a suggestion may contain some code snippets longer than ~150 characters that matches the training set. Previous research showed that many of these cases happen when GitHub Copilot is unable to glean sufficient context from the code you are writing, or when there is a common, perhaps even universal, solution to the problem.

pmarreck 4y ago

I've used Copilot for months and honestly it's become one of my most favorite inventions in all of programming- and this is key- even when it screws up (such as by suggesting Ruby-syntax code to autocomplete Elixir code). It tickles the "childlike joy" funnybone in me, the same one that got me into programming to begin with. I don't know how long it will take for typing "#ANSI yellow" (for example) and autocompleting to the right codes to get old, or every time it autocompletes anything considered "boilerplate," but it hasn't, yet! You know, pretty much all of programming can be summed up as "tedious labor elimination," and this tool directs that same labor elimination at the work of programming itself (I no longer have to constantly google syntax idiosyncrasies etc.), and NOW coders are pissed? I don't get it. Eat your own dog food, people, because this is what it looks and tastes like. As to the copyright infringement or licensing-violation claims, I have yet to see it autocomplete an entire algorithm correctly, or one copied verbatim from somewhere, although that could be mitigated. You still have to pay attention (kind of like Tesla autopilot), it's not going to eliminate your job.

Longlius 4y ago
No one is complaining about copilot making programming easier or automating it. We're upset because it's quite literally infringing on intellectual property. Infringing on intellectual property that's been set aside for the exclusive use of the commons.
- pmarreck 4y ago
  Do you use it? Have you ever used it? How many people making negative comments about it here have actually used it? I don't actually believe many have. I suggest at least trying it out before lighting your torches. If it infringes everyone equally and everyone equally benefits from the infringement, has a net wrong actually occurred? (which of course begs the "do the ends justify the means" question...) I don't see how this is any different a form of "infringement" than me copying and pasting snippets of other peoples' code, and then modifying it to suit my particular context, without specific attribution, except that the latter is a much more laborious and time-consuming process than copilot autocomplete, and programming is all about tedium elimination
  - ryukafalz 4y ago
    > If it infringes everyone equally and everyone equally benefits from the infringement, has a net wrong actually occurred? It’s not done equally though. Copyleft code is extremely likely to be on GitHub somewhere, while internal proprietary code is often not. Copilot will thus have been trained more on the former than the latter. > I don't see how this is any different a form of "infringement" than me copying and pasting snippets of other peoples' code, and then modifying it to suit my particular context, without specific attribution It’s no different, but that is also copyright infringement.
    - pmarreck 4y ago
      > but that is also copyright infringement. so basically all of Stackoverflow is copyright infringement and has been for decades? Find me the programmer who has never either 1) copied and pasted directly from the internet, or 2) taken an idea found on the internet and massaged it for their own purposes. I mean... this is basically why programming is so lucrative IMHO. Everyone is piggybacking off of everyone else's work (at least in open source)
      - ryukafalz 4y ago
        (Recent) StackOverflow contributions are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0 by default (though the author can of course release it under any additional licenses they choose): https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing If the code is really sufficiently trivial (and I’d guess that most code samples you’ll find on StackOverflow are) you may have a fair use argument in the US. Generally speaking though (and especially for anything nontrivial) you need to respect the license. CC BY-SA 4.0 is one-way compatible with GPLv3, though, so that helps if you’re including it in a GPLv3 codebase: https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-way-compatible-with-gplv3/ https://creativecommons.org/2015/10/08/cc-by-sa-4-0-now-one-...
        pmarreck 4y ago
        Define "sufficiently trivial"
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  god bless AI for moving human society beyond silly notions like ideas-as-property copyright was established to increase the innovation and creative will of the arts and sciences, what could increase that creative force more than an AI assistant who has seen every creative work ever made?
  - account42 4y ago
    I'd be all for returning ALL code to the commons. Except that is not what is happening here. The problem is that AI is being used to take code, which was provided to the commons under the explicit condition that anything built with it is also released under the same terms, is now being fed to a magic mystery machine to produce code that can supposedly legally be witheld from the comments. The only code that this affects is the one that was already shared - you won't see Microsoft feeding Windows and Office source code into Copilot anytime soon.

jka 4y ago

A possible response that I'd predict from GitHub would be to attribute much/all of the responsibility to the user. The argument would be along the lines of: you as the user are the one who asked the eidetic programmer (nice terminology, @bencollier49) to produce code for your project; all we did is make the programmer available to you.

WithinReason 4y ago
Relevant parts from the Copilot FAQ (https://github.com/features/copilot/ https://github.com/features/copilot/): Does GitHub own the code generated by GitHub Copilot? GitHub Copilot is a tool, like a compiler or a pen. GitHub does not own the suggestions GitHub Copilot generates. The code you write with GitHub Copilot’s help belongs to you, and you are responsible for it. We recommend that you carefully test, review, and vet the code before pushing it to production, as you would with any code you write that incorporates material you did not independently originate. Does GitHub Copilot recite code from the training set? The vast majority of the code that GitHub Copilot suggests has never been seen before. Our latest internal research shows that about 1% of the time, a suggestion may contain some code snippets longer than ~150 characters that matches the training set. Previous research showed that many of these cases happen when GitHub Copilot is unable to glean sufficient context from the code you are writing, or when there is a common, perhaps even universal, solution to the problem.