3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSince 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?