3 ms·

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. The point is that co-pilot is not "fair use". Co-pilot can not exist without ingesting entire codebases to encod

I think you're misunderstanding the point here. The point is that co-pilot is not "fair use". Co-pilot can not exist without ingesting entire codebases to encode their aggregate statistics which Microsoft then uses to recommend auto-completions. So what you're arguing is untenable, co-pilot does not just ingest the header files for some C library and then somehow magically provides the function implementations, it literally copies and statistically obfuscates the entire codebase (headers and all). This is obviously not "fair use". The equivalent argument here is homomorphically encrypting an entire codebase and searching through it for matching snippets and not attributing credit to the original code/source. This is essentially what co-pilot is doing but using AI hype as a cover.

gjsman-1000 4y ago
It's not obvious to a court, at all. Two (edit: three) significant arguments against it being obvious: 1. What do our human brains do? How is that different from how a human brain may function? Our brains take large amounts of information, from all sorts of places, and boil it down just as Copilot tries to do. 2. According to courts, website scraping is completely legal and "fair use." Even if you scrape 200,000 profiles. How is this not different than website scraping, but with code? I expect that argument to also come up. And if it isn't quite the same, consider the legal arguments that allowed website scraping to pass as "fair use" - they will likely apply. Edit: 3. Currently, ingesting large amounts of material, for the purposes of creating an AI-generated result, is considered legal, even if there aren't many cases. This is also how Stability AI, DALL-E, and others exist. Courts always loathe to shut down fledging industries because it makes them look political. Odds of success overturning that principle outright? I'd give it less than 10%. In a nutshell, legally, it is not obvious. Edit @belorn (stupid posting too fast limit): There is actually a difference. YouTube uses a "rolling key" scheme, which actually qualifies as a DMCA "technical protection measure" under some courts. In which case, pardon a narrow exception granted by the Library of Congress every 3 years (say, for news reporting), your dataset would be illegally obtained - for bypassing DRM. A really, really weak DRM, but courts don't care about strength when determining these things. Which is why it isn't OK. However, if YouTube didn't do that, you actually would, under current law, be OK with training a model against YouTube whether YouTube liked it or not. Code on GitHub does not have any TPMs on it, so it is legal to obtain, and thus legal for training.
- koyanisqatsi 4y ago
  I now see you're confused about how exactly co-pilot actually works. I recommend learning about statistical machine learning and not getting wrapped up in AI hype. Brains don't work like co-pilot and that argument won't work in court. Co-pilot is a statistical encryption scheme, nothing more. Carrying this argument to its natural conclusion means that homomorphic encryption makes all data fair use for profit with no need to respect the licensing terms of the original data set.
- hansvm 4y ago
  1. Human brains aren't above the law here either. When producing code that is substantially the same (especially if it's a character for character match of large swathes of an existing work) it's presumed that you copied it unless you can prove one of a few exceptions like that the code itself wasn't copyrightable (moot point in context), or that you likely hadn't ever seen the original (which copilot explicitly has). 2. Scraping by itself is probably mostly legal. What you do with the scraped information is still subject to copyright and other laws.
  - gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Or, that the work you have reproduced is sufficiently "transformative," which is an exception under "fair use" law. How different is the copy from the original? If I draw Elsa but with a green dress and a different hairstyle, I'm not under Disney's copyright even if my inspiration is clear. Edit: Also, the degree to which it must be transformative is, I would argue, lesser for code. There's only so many ways to implement an algorithm - meaning that if it is slightly different, it may be transformative enough, whereas a more creative and less utility-based outlet like painting may require greater changes.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > 1. What do our human brains do? How is that different from how a human brain may function? Our brains take large amounts of information, from all sorts of places, and boil it down just as Copilot tries to do. I've posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't matter what our brains do and how similar that is to how AI operates. Humans have rights that machines do not. For example I can watch a movie and not be sued for infringement because I made a copy of the movie in my head.

gjsman-1000 4y ago

It's not obvious to a court, at all. Two (edit: three) significant arguments against it being obvious: 1. What do our human brains do? How is that different from how a human brain may function? Our brains take large amounts of information, from all sorts of places, and boil it down just as Copilot tries to do. 2. According to courts, website scraping is completely legal and "fair use." Even if you scrape 200,000 profiles. How is this not different than website scraping, but with code? I expect that argument to also come up. And if it isn't quite the same, consider the legal arguments that allowed website scraping to pass as "fair use" - they will likely apply. Edit: 3. Currently, ingesting large amounts of material, for the purposes of creating an AI-generated result, is considered legal, even if there aren't many cases. This is also how Stability AI, DALL-E, and others exist. Courts always loathe to shut down fledging industries because it makes them look political. Odds of success overturning that principle outright? I'd give it less than 10%. In a nutshell, legally, it is not obvious. Edit @belorn (stupid posting too fast limit): There is actually a difference. YouTube uses a "rolling key" scheme, which actually qualifies as a DMCA "technical protection measure" under some courts. In which case, pardon a narrow exception granted by the Library of Congress every 3 years (say, for news reporting), your dataset would be illegally obtained - for bypassing DRM. A really, really weak DRM, but courts don't care about strength when determining these things. Which is why it isn't OK. However, if YouTube didn't do that, you actually would, under current law, be OK with training a model against YouTube whether YouTube liked it or not. Code on GitHub does not have any TPMs on it, so it is legal to obtain, and thus legal for training.

koyanisqatsi 4y ago
I now see you're confused about how exactly co-pilot actually works. I recommend learning about statistical machine learning and not getting wrapped up in AI hype. Brains don't work like co-pilot and that argument won't work in court. Co-pilot is a statistical encryption scheme, nothing more. Carrying this argument to its natural conclusion means that homomorphic encryption makes all data fair use for profit with no need to respect the licensing terms of the original data set.
hansvm 4y ago
1. Human brains aren't above the law here either. When producing code that is substantially the same (especially if it's a character for character match of large swathes of an existing work) it's presumed that you copied it unless you can prove one of a few exceptions like that the code itself wasn't copyrightable (moot point in context), or that you likely hadn't ever seen the original (which copilot explicitly has). 2. Scraping by itself is probably mostly legal. What you do with the scraped information is still subject to copyright and other laws.
- gjsman-1000 4y ago
  Or, that the work you have reproduced is sufficiently "transformative," which is an exception under "fair use" law. How different is the copy from the original? If I draw Elsa but with a green dress and a different hairstyle, I'm not under Disney's copyright even if my inspiration is clear. Edit: Also, the degree to which it must be transformative is, I would argue, lesser for code. There's only so many ways to implement an algorithm - meaning that if it is slightly different, it may be transformative enough, whereas a more creative and less utility-based outlet like painting may require greater changes.
AlexandrB 4y ago
> 1. What do our human brains do? How is that different from how a human brain may function? Our brains take large amounts of information, from all sorts of places, and boil it down just as Copilot tries to do. I've posted this elsewhere, but it doesn't matter what our brains do and how similar that is to how AI operates. Humans have rights that machines do not. For example I can watch a movie and not be sued for infringement because I made a copy of the movie in my head.