5 ms·

Microsoft Copilot is easily the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of man. You want to use my code, without ever knowing I wrote it? You wa

Microsoft Copilot is easily the greatest theft of intellectual property in the history of man. You want to use my code, without ever knowing I wrote it? You want to use my hard work, regurgitated anonymously, stripped of all credit, stripped of all attribution, stripped of all identity and ancestry and citation? FUCK YOU There's no need to defend something so obviously harmful, so why do you do it? The law should be amended to make this kind of theft illegal. It's not ambiguous.

LASR 4y ago
Are you saying the act of training the model itself is theft? Or you’re saying that using it is theft? You can have a totally legitimate business making hacksaws and bolt cutters. Now if your customers use these tools to break into homes and steal things, then yes, that’s illegal. But making the hacksaws and bolt cutters is not.
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  How is me building a novel application consisting of manually linked libraries and source code any different than building a novel application out of what Copilot generates? The difference is that Microsoft is pretending attribution and source licenses don't apply to the code it generates, even though it would in any other context.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    The difference is that you could be unwittingly taking on liability in the copilot case. So that's fun. But also in the copilot case, microsoft distributed the code to you without a license, in violation of the license.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lucasyvas 4y ago
It is a code laundering tool so corporations can steal open source code rights . It's the plainest thing I've ever seen. They charge for it on top of it. The deniers are out of their minds if they can't see what's coming. This has the potential to severely damage open source - I would not host my open source project on GitHub, especially if it was copyleft. I'm sure many others wouldn't either. Some of these authors make amazing software that we might not see because of this.
- bugfix-66 4y ago
  Training must be opt in, not opt out. Every artist, every creative individual, must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to having their hard work regurgitated anonymously by Copilot or Dall-E or whatever. If you want to donate your code or your painting or your music, so it can be used ("written", "painted"), in whole or in part, by everyone else, without attribution, then go ahead and opt in. Otherwise, you can't use the artist's or author's creative work for training. All these code/art washing systems, that absorb and mix and regurgitate the hard work of creative people must be strictly opt in.

LASR 4y ago

Are you saying the act of training the model itself is theft? Or you’re saying that using it is theft? You can have a totally legitimate business making hacksaws and bolt cutters. Now if your customers use these tools to break into homes and steal things, then yes, that’s illegal. But making the hacksaws and bolt cutters is not.

nathanaldensr 4y ago
How is me building a novel application consisting of manually linked libraries and source code any different than building a novel application out of what Copilot generates? The difference is that Microsoft is pretending attribution and source licenses don't apply to the code it generates, even though it would in any other context.
- klyrs 4y ago
  The difference is that you could be unwittingly taking on liability in the copilot case. So that's fun. But also in the copilot case, microsoft distributed the code to you without a license, in violation of the license.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lucasyvas 4y ago

It is a code laundering tool so corporations can steal open source code rights . It's the plainest thing I've ever seen. They charge for it on top of it. The deniers are out of their minds if they can't see what's coming. This has the potential to severely damage open source - I would not host my open source project on GitHub, especially if it was copyleft. I'm sure many others wouldn't either. Some of these authors make amazing software that we might not see because of this.

bugfix-66 4y ago
Training must be opt in, not opt out. Every artist, every creative individual, must EXPLICITLY OPT IN to having their hard work regurgitated anonymously by Copilot or Dall-E or whatever. If you want to donate your code or your painting or your music, so it can be used ("written", "painted"), in whole or in part, by everyone else, without attribution, then go ahead and opt in. Otherwise, you can't use the artist's or author's creative work for training. All these code/art washing systems, that absorb and mix and regurgitate the hard work of creative people must be strictly opt in.