3 ms·

I think it's interesting. Not because it exposes names, but because it shows (again) that Copilot is reproducing training data verbatim. And when the time come

I think it's interesting. Not because it exposes names, but because it shows (again) that Copilot is reproducing training data verbatim. And when the time comes to explain Copilot to laypeople (say, in court), this is an example they can understand.

philliphaydon 4y ago
It’s interesting sure. AI has a long way to go. It knows something should be there after the user types (@ but it doesn’t understand what is typically typed there. So it offers suggestions. I feel like the tweet is panic like there’s something wrong and data is being leaked which I don’t think is the case. However someone said it exposed keys. That could be bad for sure!
- jen20 4y ago
  I am legitimately looking forward to a test legal case about the obvious licensing violations that reproducing input data verbatim cause. The API keys already happened within hours of availability [1]. [1]: https://fossbytes.com/github-copilot-generating-functional-api-keys/ https://fossbytes.com/github-copilot-generating-functional-a...
yreg 4y ago
Of course it produces training data verbatim. Any single character is verbatim training data. Question is what are the longest strings that it can reproduce verbatim.
- leereeves 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think "longest" is important, legally. AIUI, if you wrote a story about a character named "Harry Potter" and used nothing else from the originals, you'd still be violating copyright. Not that these names are important. I just think a lawyer might use this example to show that Copilot is copying (without anyone's eyes glazing over), then show some complex code and argue that the code was both copied and important. The first makes the second easier to understand and accept.