4 ms·
You should read the article before commenting. The WAY it was done with copilot is the problem: no attribution, just shoving all legal liability off on the end
by batmanturkey 4y ago
You should read the article before commenting.
The WAY it was done with copilot is the problem: no attribution, just shoving all legal liability off on the end “programmer” without providing the attribution required TO COMPLY WITH LICENSES as the diligent programmer tries to clear all the code copilot handed it without meta data.
Go read the article before arguing further, please.
Otherwise you are wasting all of our time.
- rockemsockem 4y agoI did read the article first. Start-to-finish. As others have pointed out, it's a very visually appealing website. I hope that when a case on generative models hits the courts that it's found that training on data from the Internet counts as fair use. I hope that for the reasons I laid out in my comment, because I think that if it isn't then we are all in trouble since these tools will STILL EXIST, but they will be in the hands of the few instead of the many. My main reaction is to how short-sighted it seems like the authors and many others are being about this technology in general. They seem to think they can just wish it away. I also think that training on data from the Internet is fair-use, but I'm not a lawyer and I haven't studied the law extensively, so who cares what I think about that.
- abigail95 4y agoThe only waste of time in this thread is people making allegations about copyright infringement without applying a fair use test.