38 ms·

But effectively learning here really means the same thing: Based on the input (source code), you will adapt the synaptic weights between neurons, in a similar w

But effectively learning here really means the same thing: Based on the input (source code), you will adapt the synaptic weights between neurons, in a similar way for humans and for the artificial neural networks. Of course, it's not exactly the same. There are some differences in the details, and the artificial neural network is really much more simplified, and thus also less efficient at learning. But why is this relevant for the copyright question?

belorn 4y ago
I can easily write an simplistic suggestion algorithm by doing the following: Hash the content. If the content has been viewed by the user in the past, halve the numerical hash value. Then sort the list. Doing this to a music list will create a list that is biased toward music the user has listened to before but will still seem random enough to look like intelligent suggestion that the system has learned to identify. It is just math that mimics learning.
- albertzeyer 4y ago
  How is this relevant to what I wrote? You are not learning with a neural network in your example. You are not adapting synaptic weights.
  - belorn 4y ago
    {a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} The mathematics of artificial neural networks is math. It is only math. One can make it very complex or very simple but in the end it is just math and pointers.
    - albertzeyer 4y ago
      I'm not sure I understand your argument. With math, you can just describe everything, including the human brain. My original argument was specifically about neural networks, that I don't really see the principal difference in how a human learns from reading code, and how Copilot has learned from reading code.
      - belorn 4y ago
        The science to understand and map the human brain has come quite far, but we have yet to make a functional mathematical model where one can input a bunch of number and then compute what a human person is thinking. People have theorized and written novel about the idea of uploading the human mind into the computer for several decades now, but we are unlikely to even reached 1% of the road to get there. Among technology philosophers it is still highly debated if we will ever get there. Right now it is impossible to accurate describe the human brain in the form of math. What we can do is write simplified models that either describe or mimics behavior for which, if we apply abstractions, we can call predictive models. Their effectiveness are quite poor but that has never stopped people from trying to use poor predictions models to predict the future.
        albertzeyer 4y ago
        Yes but how is that relevant to my arguments? My statement on human brain was: In principle, you can describe it with math. This doesn't mean that we know how to do that yet. My statement on Copilot was: Comparing learning of the human brain to learning of the artificial neural network, both are still very similar, much more similar to other (machine or other) learning methods. Sure, there are differences. But my point is: Those differences, why are they relevant for the copyright question?
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Since you equate human mind with a neural network (questionable to me but OK), let's swap this around and call them both minds and see how it works out: The mind that can acknowledge and appreciate your work in this scenario (Copilot) does literally nothing of its own free will except 1) take your code and 2) give it to me, possibly combined with someone else's code. This is the sole purpose of its entire existence and full range of its capabilities. Is this enough of a difference compared to a human mind when copyright is concerned? It spares me from knowing that you exists, that you wrote a library that does this thing I need, that I can contribute to it, etc. In such a scenario, what is the motivation for you to make your library publicly available in the first place (other than generate revenue for Microsoft or whoever I pay for access to the network)? Does copyright have relevance to OSS now?
feet 4y ago
The implementation of artificial neural networks isn't even close to how a brain works.
- albertzeyer 4y ago
  Yes but what difference exactly plays a role for the copyright question? And why?
  - feet 4y ago
    Different networks with different dynamics for different processing and control mechanisms? Feedback that gives us self awareness? That's not even scratching the surface of differences

belorn 4y ago

I can easily write an simplistic suggestion algorithm by doing the following: Hash the content. If the content has been viewed by the user in the past, halve the numerical hash value. Then sort the list. Doing this to a music list will create a list that is biased toward music the user has listened to before but will still seem random enough to look like intelligent suggestion that the system has learned to identify. It is just math that mimics learning.

albertzeyer 4y ago
How is this relevant to what I wrote? You are not learning with a neural network in your example. You are not adapting synaptic weights.
- belorn 4y ago
  {a_{j}(t+1)=f(a_{j}(t),p_{j}(t),\theta _{j}),} The mathematics of artificial neural networks is math. It is only math. One can make it very complex or very simple but in the end it is just math and pointers.
  - albertzeyer 4y ago
    I'm not sure I understand your argument. With math, you can just describe everything, including the human brain. My original argument was specifically about neural networks, that I don't really see the principal difference in how a human learns from reading code, and how Copilot has learned from reading code.
    - belorn 4y ago
      The science to understand and map the human brain has come quite far, but we have yet to make a functional mathematical model where one can input a bunch of number and then compute what a human person is thinking. People have theorized and written novel about the idea of uploading the human mind into the computer for several decades now, but we are unlikely to even reached 1% of the road to get there. Among technology philosophers it is still highly debated if we will ever get there. Right now it is impossible to accurate describe the human brain in the form of math. What we can do is write simplified models that either describe or mimics behavior for which, if we apply abstractions, we can call predictive models. Their effectiveness are quite poor but that has never stopped people from trying to use poor predictions models to predict the future.
      - albertzeyer 4y ago
        Yes but how is that relevant to my arguments? My statement on human brain was: In principle, you can describe it with math. This doesn't mean that we know how to do that yet. My statement on Copilot was: Comparing learning of the human brain to learning of the artificial neural network, both are still very similar, much more similar to other (machine or other) learning methods. Sure, there are differences. But my point is: Those differences, why are they relevant for the copyright question?
        throwaway290 4y ago
        Since you equate human mind with a neural network (questionable to me but OK), let's swap this around and call them both minds and see how it works out: The mind that can acknowledge and appreciate your work in this scenario (Copilot) does literally nothing of its own free will except 1) take your code and 2) give it to me, possibly combined with someone else's code. This is the sole purpose of its entire existence and full range of its capabilities. Is this enough of a difference compared to a human mind when copyright is concerned? It spares me from knowing that you exists, that you wrote a library that does this thing I need, that I can contribute to it, etc. In such a scenario, what is the motivation for you to make your library publicly available in the first place (other than generate revenue for Microsoft or whoever I pay for access to the network)? Does copyright have relevance to OSS now?

feet 4y ago

The implementation of artificial neural networks isn't even close to how a brain works.

albertzeyer 4y ago
Yes but what difference exactly plays a role for the copyright question? And why?
- feet 4y ago
  Different networks with different dynamics for different processing and control mechanisms? Feedback that gives us self awareness? That's not even scratching the surface of differences