3 ms·

> Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. Copilot is a large-scale public distribution service which pumps out copyright violations which direc

> Copilot is magnifying a problem that was already there. Copilot is a large-scale public distribution service which pumps out copyright violations which directly degrade incentives of competent software authors which are known to have brought about the code that Copilot wants to pump out. It is magnifying the problem of the volume in play of a structural solvent that is dissolving the means to produce quality original software. > It, or any human doing the same, is not doing anything morally wrong. A person has placed an object into society, asking for certain treatment of it, upon which they base their livelihood. Knowingly disrespecting and ignoring the requests placed with it – which are in part embedded in a formal social structure of international law and the accompanying expectations of behavior – BY USING A GIGANTIC MACHINE TO DO SO… to support your livelihood… is not a moral failure? Can you confirm? It’s the same if you don’t use the giant machine for it. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it or choose not to accept it as such. The original author may still stop working, and there is a completely unnecessary moral failure there.

eloff 4y ago
Authors of open source software choose to put their code out into the world. The legal agreement is if you use it, you attribute the use and abide by the rules of the license. In practice this is not often done, and there is little consequence except in truly egregious cases. I don't know any open source contributors who stop working based on this or have their livelihoods affected. I personally, do not care. If I didn't want people to use the code, I wouldn't have published it at all. If copliot were to reproduce code from a public repo of mine, I don't care. The genie is not going back in the bottle, so this whole discussion is moot.

eloff 4y ago

Authors of open source software choose to put their code out into the world. The legal agreement is if you use it, you attribute the use and abide by the rules of the license. In practice this is not often done, and there is little consequence except in truly egregious cases. I don't know any open source contributors who stop working based on this or have their livelihoods affected. I personally, do not care. If I didn't want people to use the code, I wouldn't have published it at all. If copliot were to reproduce code from a public repo of mine, I don't care. The genie is not going back in the bottle, so this whole discussion is moot.