5 ms·

OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't seem particularly interested in solving anything. They literally said "I don't care that it reproduces copyrighte

OP can correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't seem particularly interested in solving anything. They literally said "I don't care that it reproduces copyrighted content." So the problem, as I see it, is the people who see the laundering of open source and proprietary code as a draw, rather than a drawback.

comex 4y ago
Not sure if they edited their comment, but the end of it contradicts your interpretation: > I won't be afraid of accidently violating copyright myself, because I won't be trying to bait it into reproducing heavily copy&pasted cherrypicked examples, and I won't use 20 lines of its output with zero modification.
- jakelazaroff 4y ago
  No, that was there, but it doesn’t contradict my interpretation. Copyright doesn’t only cover reproducing code verbatim. It also includes derivative works.
  - dmix 4y ago
    Maybe in court which interprets software dev very strictly, but in practice a developer automatically copying a single function from some 'freemium' style licensed library [1] posted publicly on Github - getting autocompleted into a different codebase with many thousands of lines of custom code isn't the same as going into some proprietary codebase and stealing their code to compete / build the same product as another company. We could come up with scenarios where there might be some fancy algorithms posted on some public Git repo that's super efficient or unique, and that somehow fits into the size of individual functions that could be auto-inserted into some other person's codebase. But IRL that sort of thing is rarely ever going to be the thing that these IDE tools do. At least in a way that meaningfully contributes to another project. That is still a concern yes, but it's still a niche usecase, which doesn't justify killing off otherwise extremely useful tools. Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed by these tools + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems. The more accurately we explain the problem, the quicker we'll find good solutions. [1] usually licensing saying commercial projects need to either pay or not use it at all. Or some attribution clause
    - smaudet 4y ago
      "Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems." I think you are, though. You have to automate the justice as well, traditional courts can't keep pace. You'll just end up with more automated DMCA-style takedowns, not less.
      - dmix 4y ago
        I think you misunderstood my comment then (or how these tools work IRL)... because I'm not saying that it's even worthy of a court case in the vast majority of cases. So why would you need to automate such a thing? And I don't even see how an automated DMCA system could exist because I doubt they'd win monetary damages in court over a 'stolen' function or two (or detect it in most commercial applications in the first place). Regardless a single class action should be enough to make Microsoft either shut down their project or adapt (via whistleblowers, leaked code, public repos, etc). And regardless if they don't adapt by investing in the possible solutions here, an OSS project could take it's place eventually and the courts wouldn't even be a useful solution. Ideally a capital-backed company will help solve this, with the obvious legal incentives that already exist. But even if it doesn't this isn't going away.
nearbuy 4y ago
OP said they don't care that it can reproduce copyrighted content because they're not going to do so with it. That's roughly the opposite of what you're implying.
- smaudet 4y ago
  No they are just going to let other people commit crimes and claim they will never do it... Do you really believe Microsoft employees aren't going to be using this, illegally or unofficially? "Yes! We (Microsoft) aren't doing anything illegal, but we are going to turn a blind eye to everyone using it illegally as we directly benefit from it - and here's the kicker! Our employees are legally liable not us evil laughter all the way to the bank" Of course the legal execs aren't using it, this is classic Microsoft (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    If accidental reproduction of copyrighted material by AI systems is illegal under current law then we should change the law immediately so that it's not. These AI systems are highly novel, transformative, and useful. Their development is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was originally created to encourage. If it's hindering them instead, that's a problem. (And no, I'm not saying people should be allowed to use AI to intentionally launder stolen code; use some common sense here.)
    - jakelazaroff 4y ago
      Why is it so outlandish to expect the people who make money by selling AI systems to only train them using material for which they have a license? As many commenters have pointed out, no one would have a problem had Microsoft trained Copilot on the Windows source code. The fact that they intentionally left it out of the training set is a huge red flag.
      - Ajedi32 4y ago
        Because AI systems require large amounts of training data, the more the better, and requiring manual review of those datasets to ensure compliance with copyright would consume significant resources and slow down the pace of innovation across the entire AI industry. Now let me flip that question around on you: What benefit would society gain from that forcing AI developers to do all that extra work?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

comex 4y ago

Not sure if they edited their comment, but the end of it contradicts your interpretation: > I won't be afraid of accidently violating copyright myself, because I won't be trying to bait it into reproducing heavily copy&pasted cherrypicked examples, and I won't use 20 lines of its output with zero modification.

jakelazaroff 4y ago
No, that was there, but it doesn’t contradict my interpretation. Copyright doesn’t only cover reproducing code verbatim. It also includes derivative works.
- dmix 4y ago
  Maybe in court which interprets software dev very strictly, but in practice a developer automatically copying a single function from some 'freemium' style licensed library [1] posted publicly on Github - getting autocompleted into a different codebase with many thousands of lines of custom code isn't the same as going into some proprietary codebase and stealing their code to compete / build the same product as another company. We could come up with scenarios where there might be some fancy algorithms posted on some public Git repo that's super efficient or unique, and that somehow fits into the size of individual functions that could be auto-inserted into some other person's codebase. But IRL that sort of thing is rarely ever going to be the thing that these IDE tools do. At least in a way that meaningfully contributes to another project. That is still a concern yes, but it's still a niche usecase, which doesn't justify killing off otherwise extremely useful tools. Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed by these tools + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems. The more accurately we explain the problem, the quicker we'll find good solutions. [1] usually licensing saying commercial projects need to either pay or not use it at all. Or some attribution clause
  - smaudet 4y ago
    "Maybe I'm being too techno-libertarian here, but I believe existing courts + public feedback cycles + iterating on how the public code is consumed + spreading awareness of the issue is enough to address the licensing problems." I think you are, though. You have to automate the justice as well, traditional courts can't keep pace. You'll just end up with more automated DMCA-style takedowns, not less.
    - dmix 4y ago
      I think you misunderstood my comment then (or how these tools work IRL)... because I'm not saying that it's even worthy of a court case in the vast majority of cases. So why would you need to automate such a thing? And I don't even see how an automated DMCA system could exist because I doubt they'd win monetary damages in court over a 'stolen' function or two (or detect it in most commercial applications in the first place). Regardless a single class action should be enough to make Microsoft either shut down their project or adapt (via whistleblowers, leaked code, public repos, etc). And regardless if they don't adapt by investing in the possible solutions here, an OSS project could take it's place eventually and the courts wouldn't even be a useful solution. Ideally a capital-backed company will help solve this, with the obvious legal incentives that already exist. But even if it doesn't this isn't going away.

nearbuy 4y ago

OP said they don't care that it can reproduce copyrighted content because they're not going to do so with it. That's roughly the opposite of what you're implying.

smaudet 4y ago
No they are just going to let other people commit crimes and claim they will never do it... Do you really believe Microsoft employees aren't going to be using this, illegally or unofficially? "Yes! We (Microsoft) aren't doing anything illegal, but we are going to turn a blind eye to everyone using it illegally as we directly benefit from it - and here's the kicker! Our employees are legally liable not us evil laughter all the way to the bank" Of course the legal execs aren't using it, this is classic Microsoft (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish).
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  If accidental reproduction of copyrighted material by AI systems is illegal under current law then we should change the law immediately so that it's not. These AI systems are highly novel, transformative, and useful. Their development is exactly the sort of thing copyright law was originally created to encourage. If it's hindering them instead, that's a problem. (And no, I'm not saying people should be allowed to use AI to intentionally launder stolen code; use some common sense here.)
  - jakelazaroff 4y ago
    Why is it so outlandish to expect the people who make money by selling AI systems to only train them using material for which they have a license? As many commenters have pointed out, no one would have a problem had Microsoft trained Copilot on the Windows source code. The fact that they intentionally left it out of the training set is a huge red flag.
    - Ajedi32 4y ago
      Because AI systems require large amounts of training data, the more the better, and requiring manual review of those datasets to ensure compliance with copyright would consume significant resources and slow down the pace of innovation across the entire AI industry. Now let me flip that question around on you: What benefit would society gain from that forcing AI developers to do all that extra work?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]