6 ms·

Totally disagree. Training is fair use. It is akin to learning. Code licenses do not restrict you from reading or learning. ML training needs to be fair use of

Totally disagree. Training is fair use. It is akin to learning. Code licenses do not restrict you from reading or learning. ML training needs to be fair use of copyrighted works, or most machine learning and AI projects will be impossible.

bheadmaster 4y ago
You are assuming that "training" and "learning" in ML means exactly the same thing as "training" and "learning" in humans. It doesn't. The processes are completely different, with only an apparent resemblance.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  No, they aren't completely different. Learning is learning.
  - bheadmaster 4y ago
    > Learning is learning. No, learning (by ML) is not learning (by humans). It's just a same word used in different context, and doesn't by itself imply that the meaning is the same. The underlying process is completely different. Neural networks, despite their name, don't share anything in common with human brains. Do you have any other argument besides "the word is the same"?
    - i_like_apis 4y ago
      The concept is also the same. > Neural networks, despite their name, don't share anything in common with human brains. They share enough. Current ANNs are different than human neurons, however, the principle of learning they are operating on is very similar. Machine Learning is learning. You can't look at ImageNet or just about any other model and say otherwise. I'm informed on how current artificial neural networks work, how they are made, what they are and aren't capable of, etc. Thanks.
      - bheadmaster 4y ago
        The concept is shallowly similar, not nearly the same. Human learning, at the very least, consists of maintaining internal model of the world around us and integrates all data into a coherent structure. Current neural networks are extremely limited in their capabilities - each model operates on a strict class of data, and is not able to comprehend the world outside of that class of data, and as such cannot be compared to human understanding. CoPilot does not understand how the computer works - it only understands that connections between pieces of text exist. If you're as informed on how ANNs work as you claim to be, then perhaps you should inform yourself more on how human mind works.
        i_like_apis 4y ago
        Ok thanks
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        You're welcome.
- des1nderlase 4y ago
  But the real question is why should fair use include both human and machine type of learning?
b4je7d7wb 4y ago
Most AI projects being impossible sounds better to me than license violations.
kevincox 4y ago
I agree that training is fair use. I don't agree that when the model spits out verbatim or near-identical copies of copyright code that somehow the copyright is striped or that the usage of it is somehow fair use. I believe that the vast majority of code that copilot produces is fine. But we have also seen clear examples of copyright violation. The biggest problem is that it is basically impossible for the user to tell which is which.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  I agree there, and I think most rational people would too. This whole website though and "investigation" is some sort of sensationalism that seems ultimately aimed at fair use training, which is very unfortunate. It seems like it involves an ego trip and popularity-chasing with targeting a megacorp as a means to that end.
BowBun 4y ago
Like posts have said, whether training is fair use is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law. You can't use an appeal to your authority to make grand statements like this. Frankly, I don't care that ML/AI _needs_ this to work. That's not my problem. You don't get to circumvent existing agreements (and law) because you believe that ML learning is the same as a human reading a piece of code and then typing it up on the side. Tesla manages just fine by generating their own training data. Other businesses have found partners to acquire data from. The only reason this isn't being immediately addressed is because there is near-zero accountability for license violations in software companies, and ML further obfuscates that.
- i_like_apis 4y ago
  There isn’t law any law yet. And yes, it is the same thing as learning. If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie?
  - trention 4y ago
    >If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie? Yes.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      That's absurd, it's like saying you want an army of robot slaves. Now, wanting to minimize the impact of robotic competition on human wellbeing, understandable. But the means to that end is declining to recognize property rights of those who who try to privatize the commons.
      - trention 4y ago
        Ideally, I want the "army of robots" prevented from being created at all. But "robot slaves" is close to the second best option.
  - 4y ago
vasco 4y ago
Microsoft has written and acquired plenty of codebases over the years. Train the AI on that.
trention 4y ago
>ML training needs to be fair use of copyrighted works, or most machine learning and AI projects will be impossible. Good riddance then.
reitanqild 4y ago
Training by reading others works can be fair use. But the moment you start reproducing more than a few lines of prose without attribution I guess you are in for a nasty letter.

bheadmaster 4y ago

You are assuming that "training" and "learning" in ML means exactly the same thing as "training" and "learning" in humans. It doesn't. The processes are completely different, with only an apparent resemblance.

i_like_apis 4y ago
No, they aren't completely different. Learning is learning.
- bheadmaster 4y ago
  > Learning is learning. No, learning (by ML) is not learning (by humans). It's just a same word used in different context, and doesn't by itself imply that the meaning is the same. The underlying process is completely different. Neural networks, despite their name, don't share anything in common with human brains. Do you have any other argument besides "the word is the same"?
  - i_like_apis 4y ago
    The concept is also the same. > Neural networks, despite their name, don't share anything in common with human brains. They share enough. Current ANNs are different than human neurons, however, the principle of learning they are operating on is very similar. Machine Learning is learning. You can't look at ImageNet or just about any other model and say otherwise. I'm informed on how current artificial neural networks work, how they are made, what they are and aren't capable of, etc. Thanks.
    - bheadmaster 4y ago
      The concept is shallowly similar, not nearly the same. Human learning, at the very least, consists of maintaining internal model of the world around us and integrates all data into a coherent structure. Current neural networks are extremely limited in their capabilities - each model operates on a strict class of data, and is not able to comprehend the world outside of that class of data, and as such cannot be compared to human understanding. CoPilot does not understand how the computer works - it only understands that connections between pieces of text exist. If you're as informed on how ANNs work as you claim to be, then perhaps you should inform yourself more on how human mind works.
      - i_like_apis 4y ago
        Ok thanks
        bheadmaster 4y ago
        You're welcome.
des1nderlase 4y ago
But the real question is why should fair use include both human and machine type of learning?

b4je7d7wb 4y ago

Most AI projects being impossible sounds better to me than license violations.

kevincox 4y ago

I agree that training is fair use. I don't agree that when the model spits out verbatim or near-identical copies of copyright code that somehow the copyright is striped or that the usage of it is somehow fair use. I believe that the vast majority of code that copilot produces is fine. But we have also seen clear examples of copyright violation. The biggest problem is that it is basically impossible for the user to tell which is which.

i_like_apis 4y ago
I agree there, and I think most rational people would too. This whole website though and "investigation" is some sort of sensationalism that seems ultimately aimed at fair use training, which is very unfortunate. It seems like it involves an ego trip and popularity-chasing with targeting a megacorp as a means to that end.

BowBun 4y ago

Like posts have said, whether training is fair use is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of law. You can't use an appeal to your authority to make grand statements like this. Frankly, I don't care that ML/AI _needs_ this to work. That's not my problem. You don't get to circumvent existing agreements (and law) because you believe that ML learning is the same as a human reading a piece of code and then typing it up on the side. Tesla manages just fine by generating their own training data. Other businesses have found partners to acquire data from. The only reason this isn't being immediately addressed is because there is near-zero accountability for license violations in software companies, and ML further obfuscates that.

i_like_apis 4y ago
There isn’t law any law yet. And yes, it is the same thing as learning. If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie?
- trention 4y ago
  >If you have a robot that learns like a human does … you think it should be illegal for that machine to look at GitHub? To watch a Hollywood movie? Yes.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    That's absurd, it's like saying you want an army of robot slaves. Now, wanting to minimize the impact of robotic competition on human wellbeing, understandable. But the means to that end is declining to recognize property rights of those who who try to privatize the commons.
    - trention 4y ago
      Ideally, I want the "army of robots" prevented from being created at all. But "robot slaves" is close to the second best option.
- 4y ago

vasco 4y ago

Microsoft has written and acquired plenty of codebases over the years. Train the AI on that.

trention 4y ago

>ML training needs to be fair use of copyrighted works, or most machine learning and AI projects will be impossible. Good riddance then.

reitanqild 4y ago

Training by reading others works can be fair use. But the moment you start reproducing more than a few lines of prose without attribution I guess you are in for a nasty letter.