6 ms·

I use Copilot all the time and I’ve never once used it to generate a whole prepackaged function that’s more than maybe three lines. So no, I don’t benefit from

by oefrha 4y ago

I use Copilot all the time and I’ve never once used it to generate a whole prepackaged function that’s more than maybe three lines. So no, I don’t benefit from its reproducing other people’s code at all. Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it.

remram 4y ago
> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it. You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it? That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever.
- oefrha 4y ago
  They should at least try to understand how it’s actually used, not imagining how it’s simply used to steal their largely replaceable code.
  - xigoi 4y ago
    It doesn't matter how it's used. Do you think Microsoft would be happy with someone training a model on Windows source code, as long as they didn't use it to reproduce the code?
    - sangnoir 4y ago
      If Microsoft were confident Copilot doesn't produce infringing code, they would have included the Windows and Office codebases in the training data. I wonder what will come out of discovery
      - manmal 4y ago
        You think MS‘ code quality is high enough to train an AI on?
        AlexandrB 4y ago
        Do you think they audited every open source code base that was used in training for quality?
  - batmanturkey 4y ago
    “Their largely replaceable code” Smells like: “ I stole this lousy apple that wasn’t any good” Then why did you steal it? Put your money where your mouth is, Microsoft, train copilot on your own code!!! Don’t wanna train it with windows 11 code? Prefer to hijack others projects and use their for your needs and then pretend thst insulting others and calling their code worthless will get you off the hook???? Backfire
    - woah 4y ago
      > Smells like: “ I stole this lousy apple that wasn’t any good” Then why did you steal it? The lousy code trained copilot in what a switch statement looks like so it can autocomplete mine for me
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it. > You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it? > That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever. "I only listen to people who agree with me, but to make that sound legitimate, I have a somewhat indirect way of saying so."
- cdrini 4y ago
  I believe the argument is that you shouldn't accept arguments against the use of copilot from people unless they have tried to use it. In a realistic context. That seems reasonable to me. It's the bare minimum to make an informed opinion. I think the wording was perhaps poor, but I think your interpretation is a little reductive/disingenuous.
  - ranguna 4y ago
    I don't see how using copilot make the copyright question any less serious. Because it's useful, then it's not a problem? Well, it's also useful to send our non recyclable trash to 3rd world countries and every 1st World country should try it. It will definitely make the consequences less serious if everyone does it. Not apples to apples but I guess you get the picture.
    - concordDance 4y ago
      Because its a net good to the world its not a problem. It the benefit is orders of magnitude greater than the harm then its good.
      - batmanturkey 4y ago
        It’s a net harm for the programmers whose code is being willfully plagiarized. It’s a net boon for Microsoft in their efforts to rule the world. It’s a net loss for society and ethics. Open up copilot code, Microsoft, if you are so sure that everyone must wear transparent underwear let’s see you wearing some. Train copilot on windows 11 code. It’s not public domain. Truth matters. Lies matter
        onethought 4y ago
        Expand on the unethical part. So people published code that could be referenced and copied on GitHub. There was no ethical problem, the world, society were happy. Github make a convenient way to search and contextualise this publicly available code and paste it into your code (adjusting local scope, format, language along the way). Suddenly we have crossed an ethical line!? Which ethical line? Are you pretending people never copy and pasted open source code before copilot? Are you pretending open source code never copy and pasted other open source code? That we were in an ethically pure world until copilot came along?
- LtWorf 4y ago
  On a different website I argued with a microsoft employee who said that copilot is great and so on and would not discuss unless I tried it. I tried telling that it requires a credit card number to try it but he didn't believe me… I guess the thought that non-microsoft employees have to pay for microsoft stuff didn't occur.
jakelazaroff 4y ago
That isn't sufficient to get you off the hook. Copyright covers derivative work, not just code that's reproduced verbatim.
- Too 4y ago
  Derivative work requires a major part of the original, before it’s considered by copyright. A 3 line boilerplate is neither novel nor a major part of the original.
  - smaudet 4y ago
    I think if copilot is heavily restricted to three line code samples, perhaps I could agree with this. The example cited by the OP is not a three line code sample - if you've ever done matrix coding, you know that sparse matrix operations are not simple. Sure you can reduce it to a function call, but then you have library usage instead of code theft. I think actually perhaps this is a way copilot could ethically move forward - instead of lifting code verbatim if it merely suggested libraries and approaches "here is an example of sparse matrix filtering and some libraries which do it", that would be both useful and ethical, presuming it does not obscure the license.
    - sdenton4 4y ago
      ...But the example cited by the OP isn't how anyone actually uses copilot... From where I sit, the complainant has found an extremely convoluted (and buggy) way to copy-paste their own code and is very upset about it. By similar logic, we should restrict the use of ctrl-c and ctrl-v, because they allow very simple infringement of open source licenses. Find a sparse matrix multiplication library which uses the copied code without attribution and you can take them to court; the law is already sufficient for this.
- cornel_io 4y ago
  "Derivative work" is a very specific thing, and it's contrasted with "transformative work" in a way that matters a lot, and fair use intersects heavily with both. Even when it comes to stuff that seems reaaaaally close to pure derivative: Googling "How long does it take to boil water?" => "If you're boiling water on the stovetop, in a standard sized saucepan, then it takes around 10 minutes for the correct temp of boiling water to be reached. In a kettle, the boiling point is reached in half this time." That's a verbatim snippet pulled directly from https://unocasa.com/blogs/tips/how-long-to-boil-water https://unocasa.com/blogs/tips/how-long-to-boil-water, and yet Google exists and continues to do stuff like this under the fair use doctrine despite massive efforts to attack/monetize their service. [To be fair, Google does link results, which probably insulates them because it's less hurtful to the commercial interests of the source; that said, with open source there generally are no commercial interests to hurt (open source attribution will be a tough sell as an actual commercial interest), and that's specifically called out in the law as a factor] Copilot is even less explicitly at risk IMO, in that it never even stores the text, nor can it reliably retrieve it. I have no idea what makes anyone think it should be more vulnerable than Google. From the copyright.gov page on fair use (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/, worth reading in detail for anyone who cares about this stuff, also has links to a monumental number of cases with shockingly intelligible summaries): "Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work." Copilot without any shadow of a doubt does add something new, with a further purpose, and does not substitute for the original use of any codebase on Github (it can't create any of the codebases in full, without manual guidance so extreme that you'd have to be using the actual original codebase as a reference, so it clearly cannot substitute for a single one of them, and that's what a lawyer will argue, likely successfully). In the Google vs. Oracle case (see https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/google-llc-oracle-am-inc-2021.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/google-llc-orac...), a big piece of the fair use finding was that "its value in significant part derives from the value that those who do not hold copyrights, namely, computer programmers, invest of their own time and effort to learn." and "further[s] the development of computer programs”. It's hard to see where Copilot wouldn't fall into that category, as well, and that's precedent on (multiple) appeal. By my reading this should be a slam-dunk fair use ruling, unless precedent gets really upended, and Butterick is wasting a ton of time and effort for absolutely zero potential gain other than some bragging rights, but to each his own...I guess we all have to grind our axes from time to time.
cycomanic 4y ago
Ok so you don't care about the second part of the argument, you don't care about the danger of violating copyright.. The first question though is if training on large bodies of OSS is fair use. Are you saying you don't care about the copyright of your own work either? Or you don't care because you don't publish your work OSS?
- oefrha 4y ago
  I’m sure I’ve done more to OSS than 95% of commenters here. I publish my code under MIT when possible (and WTFPL for smaller projects), and yes, please train on my work or split out my functions verbatim, they are far less valuable than some people seem to believe. I don’t even care about the attribution part of MIT, it’s simply a nice to have when decent people use my code.
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    This isn’t just about OSS. If I have a public repo on GitHub without a license, you can’t rewrite that code and put it in your project. I own the copyright. The issue is that Copilot will still launder it into your project for you.
    - tommek4077 4y ago
      Oefrha just said that his, and probably yours, code is not worth that much if splitted into functions and commentary blocks. The value of software comes from its whole purpose, not your clever email-validation-regex you are so proud of.
      - ranguna 4y ago
        Then why use OSS licenses in the first place? Let's just copy each other's code without attribution.
        tommek4077 4y ago
        I am totally for this! Will bring everyone forward in general without costing the society as much as this copyright bs.

by oefrha 4y ago

remram 4y ago

> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it. You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it? That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever.

oefrha 4y ago
They should at least try to understand how it’s actually used, not imagining how it’s simply used to steal their largely replaceable code.
- xigoi 4y ago
  It doesn't matter how it's used. Do you think Microsoft would be happy with someone training a model on Windows source code, as long as they didn't use it to reproduce the code?
  - sangnoir 4y ago
    If Microsoft were confident Copilot doesn't produce infringing code, they would have included the Windows and Office codebases in the training data. I wonder what will come out of discovery
    - manmal 4y ago
      You think MS‘ code quality is high enough to train an AI on?
      - AlexandrB 4y ago
        Do you think they audited every open source code base that was used in training for quality?
- batmanturkey 4y ago
  “Their largely replaceable code” Smells like: “ I stole this lousy apple that wasn’t any good” Then why did you steal it? Put your money where your mouth is, Microsoft, train copilot on your own code!!! Don’t wanna train it with windows 11 code? Prefer to hijack others projects and use their for your needs and then pretend thst insulting others and calling their code worthless will get you off the hook???? Backfire
  - woah 4y ago
    > Smells like: “ I stole this lousy apple that wasn’t any good” Then why did you steal it? The lousy code trained copilot in what a switch statement looks like so it can autocomplete mine for me
tablespoon 4y ago
>> Tell me you don’t use Copilot without telling me about it. > You don't accept arguments against the use of Copilot from people unless they... use it? > That's a nifty way to ignore any and all criticism of Copilot, or indeed any discussion about any ethical issue ever. "I only listen to people who agree with me, but to make that sound legitimate, I have a somewhat indirect way of saying so."
cdrini 4y ago
I believe the argument is that you shouldn't accept arguments against the use of copilot from people unless they have tried to use it. In a realistic context. That seems reasonable to me. It's the bare minimum to make an informed opinion. I think the wording was perhaps poor, but I think your interpretation is a little reductive/disingenuous.
- ranguna 4y ago
  I don't see how using copilot make the copyright question any less serious. Because it's useful, then it's not a problem? Well, it's also useful to send our non recyclable trash to 3rd world countries and every 1st World country should try it. It will definitely make the consequences less serious if everyone does it. Not apples to apples but I guess you get the picture.
  - concordDance 4y ago
    Because its a net good to the world its not a problem. It the benefit is orders of magnitude greater than the harm then its good.
    - batmanturkey 4y ago
      It’s a net harm for the programmers whose code is being willfully plagiarized. It’s a net boon for Microsoft in their efforts to rule the world. It’s a net loss for society and ethics. Open up copilot code, Microsoft, if you are so sure that everyone must wear transparent underwear let’s see you wearing some. Train copilot on windows 11 code. It’s not public domain. Truth matters. Lies matter
      - onethought 4y ago
        Expand on the unethical part. So people published code that could be referenced and copied on GitHub. There was no ethical problem, the world, society were happy. Github make a convenient way to search and contextualise this publicly available code and paste it into your code (adjusting local scope, format, language along the way). Suddenly we have crossed an ethical line!? Which ethical line? Are you pretending people never copy and pasted open source code before copilot? Are you pretending open source code never copy and pasted other open source code? That we were in an ethically pure world until copilot came along?
LtWorf 4y ago
On a different website I argued with a microsoft employee who said that copilot is great and so on and would not discuss unless I tried it. I tried telling that it requires a credit card number to try it but he didn't believe me… I guess the thought that non-microsoft employees have to pay for microsoft stuff didn't occur.

jakelazaroff 4y ago

That isn't sufficient to get you off the hook. Copyright covers derivative work, not just code that's reproduced verbatim.

Too 4y ago
Derivative work requires a major part of the original, before it’s considered by copyright. A 3 line boilerplate is neither novel nor a major part of the original.
- smaudet 4y ago
  I think if copilot is heavily restricted to three line code samples, perhaps I could agree with this. The example cited by the OP is not a three line code sample - if you've ever done matrix coding, you know that sparse matrix operations are not simple. Sure you can reduce it to a function call, but then you have library usage instead of code theft. I think actually perhaps this is a way copilot could ethically move forward - instead of lifting code verbatim if it merely suggested libraries and approaches "here is an example of sparse matrix filtering and some libraries which do it", that would be both useful and ethical, presuming it does not obscure the license.
  - sdenton4 4y ago
    ...But the example cited by the OP isn't how anyone actually uses copilot... From where I sit, the complainant has found an extremely convoluted (and buggy) way to copy-paste their own code and is very upset about it. By similar logic, we should restrict the use of ctrl-c and ctrl-v, because they allow very simple infringement of open source licenses. Find a sparse matrix multiplication library which uses the copied code without attribution and you can take them to court; the law is already sufficient for this.
cornel_io 4y ago
"Derivative work" is a very specific thing, and it's contrasted with "transformative work" in a way that matters a lot, and fair use intersects heavily with both. Even when it comes to stuff that seems reaaaaally close to pure derivative: Googling "How long does it take to boil water?" => "If you're boiling water on the stovetop, in a standard sized saucepan, then it takes around 10 minutes for the correct temp of boiling water to be reached. In a kettle, the boiling point is reached in half this time." That's a verbatim snippet pulled directly from https://unocasa.com/blogs/tips/how-long-to-boil-water https://unocasa.com/blogs/tips/how-long-to-boil-water, and yet Google exists and continues to do stuff like this under the fair use doctrine despite massive efforts to attack/monetize their service. [To be fair, Google does link results, which probably insulates them because it's less hurtful to the commercial interests of the source; that said, with open source there generally are no commercial interests to hurt (open source attribution will be a tough sell as an actual commercial interest), and that's specifically called out in the law as a factor] Copilot is even less explicitly at risk IMO, in that it never even stores the text, nor can it reliably retrieve it. I have no idea what makes anyone think it should be more vulnerable than Google. From the copyright.gov page on fair use (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/ https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/, worth reading in detail for anyone who cares about this stuff, also has links to a monumental number of cases with shockingly intelligible summaries): "Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work." Copilot without any shadow of a doubt does add something new, with a further purpose, and does not substitute for the original use of any codebase on Github (it can't create any of the codebases in full, without manual guidance so extreme that you'd have to be using the actual original codebase as a reference, so it clearly cannot substitute for a single one of them, and that's what a lawyer will argue, likely successfully). In the Google vs. Oracle case (see https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/google-llc-oracle-am-inc-2021.pdf https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/summaries/google-llc-orac...), a big piece of the fair use finding was that "its value in significant part derives from the value that those who do not hold copyrights, namely, computer programmers, invest of their own time and effort to learn." and "further[s] the development of computer programs”. It's hard to see where Copilot wouldn't fall into that category, as well, and that's precedent on (multiple) appeal. By my reading this should be a slam-dunk fair use ruling, unless precedent gets really upended, and Butterick is wasting a ton of time and effort for absolutely zero potential gain other than some bragging rights, but to each his own...I guess we all have to grind our axes from time to time.

cycomanic 4y ago

Ok so you don't care about the second part of the argument, you don't care about the danger of violating copyright.. The first question though is if training on large bodies of OSS is fair use. Are you saying you don't care about the copyright of your own work either? Or you don't care because you don't publish your work OSS?

oefrha 4y ago
I’m sure I’ve done more to OSS than 95% of commenters here. I publish my code under MIT when possible (and WTFPL for smaller projects), and yes, please train on my work or split out my functions verbatim, they are far less valuable than some people seem to believe. I don’t even care about the attribution part of MIT, it’s simply a nice to have when decent people use my code.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  This isn’t just about OSS. If I have a public repo on GitHub without a license, you can’t rewrite that code and put it in your project. I own the copyright. The issue is that Copilot will still launder it into your project for you.
  - tommek4077 4y ago
    Oefrha just said that his, and probably yours, code is not worth that much if splitted into functions and commentary blocks. The value of software comes from its whole purpose, not your clever email-validation-regex you are so proud of.
    - ranguna 4y ago
      Then why use OSS licenses in the first place? Let's just copy each other's code without attribution.
      - tommek4077 4y ago
        I am totally for this! Will bring everyone forward in general without costing the society as much as this copyright bs.