4 ms·

I haven't seen a study yet, but yes, Copilot deliberately (AFAICT) incorporates randomness. For longer code fragments, I believe this would thwart most plagiari

I haven't seen a study yet, but yes, Copilot deliberately (AFAICT) incorporates randomness. For longer code fragments, I believe this would thwart most plagiarism detectors. I'll note that defeating plagiarism detectors is easier than many people think. I and one of my students wrote a paper on an automatic technique to defeat plagiarism detectors, and it was highly effective: "Mossad: Defeating Software Plagiarism Detection", Devore-McDonald and Berger, OOPSLA 2020 (talk and paper link here: https://2020.splashcon.org/details/splash-2020-oopsla/14/Mossad-Defeating-Software-Plagiarism-Detection https://2020.splashcon.org/details/splash-2020-oopsla/14/Mos...).

stew-j 4y ago
From the OOPSLA paper abstract: > techniques inspired by genetic programming with domain-specific knowledge to effectively undermine plagiarism detectors. My creaky memory of CS Theory makes me suspect that, ultimately, Mr. Turing's halting problem may make resistance to cheating futile. [1] It's interesting that the paper is in OOPSLA, I used to follow the work from it more, especially when I listened to IEEE's Software Engineering Radio. Thanks for your work in this area and your reply. DieHard and DieHarder are funny, creative names for fault tolerant memory managers. It's also nice to see a fellow humorist. At least we can rest assured that cheaters get what they deserve, like my classmate at Columbia. [2] Regards. [1] > He, for one, welcomes our new AI overlords. Yes, let's suggest a Borg-like partnership with them. I'd be willing to drive "self-driving-car" tow truck--if they haven't invented a self-driving one yet. [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32532896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32532896