5 ms·

You could make this kind of "just" and "bog standard" argument for anything. Just using an image for educational or illustrative purpose, just using a song for

by sfifs 4y ago

You could make this kind of "just" and "bog standard" argument for anything. Just using an image for educational or illustrative purpose, just using a song for a political rally etc etc. The fact is as a society we have decided to reward creators with copyright as a means to commercialise their creation and get compensation. Who is to say programmers are not creators and the compensation they want for open source licenses is attribution? Microsoft really should have known better than to touch OpenAI without a 10 feet barge pole.

mellosouls 4y ago
How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? Most coding is not innovative, and that is the kind of code that these tools are producing and derived from in most cases.
- tommyage 4y ago
  > How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? So your requirements are pseudo-code which you simply have ti translate. I see. No creativity required. Jepp. > Most coding is not innovative, and that is the kind of code that these tools are producing and derived from in most cases. I see what you want to suggest. Then it woulnb't be required to learn on these datasets and simply build a "fair use" product which covers these cases with a snippet engine. Don't be naive.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? If programming is nothing but translating unoriginal old algorithms, then you should train copilot on those. Nobody would complain. The fact that they don't is an unassailable proof of the unsurprising fact that programmers add value to programs.

by sfifs 4y ago

mellosouls 4y ago

How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? Most coding is not innovative, and that is the kind of code that these tools are producing and derived from in most cases.

tommyage 4y ago
> How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? So your requirements are pseudo-code which you simply have ti translate. I see. No creativity required. Jepp. > Most coding is not innovative, and that is the kind of code that these tools are producing and derived from in most cases. I see what you want to suggest. Then it woulnb't be required to learn on these datasets and simply build a "fair use" product which covers these cases with a snippet engine. Don't be naive.
pessimizer 4y ago
> How are you a "creator" (in an attribution-worthy sense) if you are producing an unoriginal implementation of an old algorithm that thousands of coders have produced before you? If programming is nothing but translating unoriginal old algorithms, then you should train copilot on those. Nobody would complain. The fact that they don't is an unassailable proof of the unsurprising fact that programmers add value to programs.