2 ms·

> 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. I disagree, and this d

> 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. I disagree, and this does not hold up generally: We can, and should, argue things we have not tried or experienced, like heroin and murder. What makes it so that this has to be tried? > It's the bare minimum to make an informed opinion. Only if the usefulness is what is in question. But it is not.

cdrini 4y ago
Correct, it doesn't hold up generally. But it doesn't need to. It holds up here. We do not try things when there is exceptional risk or cost in the trying. Here there is no cost to trying, so it does not make sense not to try. I believe the argument being made is that in _actual, real-world_ use of copilot, no copyright infringement happens. So it's not just about usefulness.
- gizzlon 4y ago
  > I believe the argument being made is that in _actual, real-world_ use of copilot, no copyright infringement happens. So it's not just about usefulness. How would you know though? The burden of proof is on Copilot. Especially now that it has been shown to spit out copyrighted code.
yunohn 4y ago
You’re right, trying Copilot is equivalent to committing murder. /s
anigbrowl 4y ago
> We can, and should, argue things we have not tried or experienced, like heroin and murder. What makes it so that this has to be tried? It's not that you absolutely have to have experience with something, but you'd be foolish to discount the input of people who do. In debates about drug policy I try to be polite to people with zero first hand experience, but their contributions are rarely of interest. Murder is a bit more abstract insofar as anyone who has fully experienced it by definition didn't survive to testify, but I give a lot more weight to the views of people that have first-hand knowledge of violence and crime. It's not that you shouldn't weigh in on a topic without first hand experience, but that it's a good idea to specify the scope of your understanding, or frame uncertainties as open questions rather than assumptions.

cdrini 4y ago

Correct, it doesn't hold up generally. But it doesn't need to. It holds up here. We do not try things when there is exceptional risk or cost in the trying. Here there is no cost to trying, so it does not make sense not to try. I believe the argument being made is that in _actual, real-world_ use of copilot, no copyright infringement happens. So it's not just about usefulness.

gizzlon 4y ago
> I believe the argument being made is that in _actual, real-world_ use of copilot, no copyright infringement happens. So it's not just about usefulness. How would you know though? The burden of proof is on Copilot. Especially now that it has been shown to spit out copyrighted code.

yunohn 4y ago

You’re right, trying Copilot is equivalent to committing murder. /s

anigbrowl 4y ago

> We can, and should, argue things we have not tried or experienced, like heroin and murder. What makes it so that this has to be tried? It's not that you absolutely have to have experience with something, but you'd be foolish to discount the input of people who do. In debates about drug policy I try to be polite to people with zero first hand experience, but their contributions are rarely of interest. Murder is a bit more abstract insofar as anyone who has fully experienced it by definition didn't survive to testify, but I give a lot more weight to the views of people that have first-hand knowledge of violence and crime. It's not that you shouldn't weigh in on a topic without first hand experience, but that it's a good idea to specify the scope of your understanding, or frame uncertainties as open questions rather than assumptions.