3 ms·

Who's more entitled? The coder who has no issue with their unoriginal code being copied and mixed with millions of other samples and churned out in a helpful wa

Who's more entitled? The coder who has no issue with their unoriginal code being copied and mixed with millions of other samples and churned out in a helpful way for others, or the one who demands attribution in the most trivial of cases, or denies the access in these forms as it doesn't credit their brilliance in implementing a sort function? I'm in the first category; I'm guessing by your abusive response you are in the second?

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Nice straw-men you're collecting there. First one: Uses of attribution and copyleft licenses are just ego-boosting, instead of legitimate protection of authorship against corporate piracy. Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive. Third strawmen: that people who oppose CoPilot in its current form just want to defend copyright around boilerplate stack-overflowish type code. All false. I can only assume... You're either too young and inexperienced to remember the early days of the copyleft, free software, and open source movements and why these licenses exist (and still need to exist)... or your values are so backwards that you just think it's Ok to harvest other people's hard work for your own (or your employer's) own profit. To be clear: There is no heuristic at work in something like CoPilot that can distinguish between boilerplate code and genuine innovation. It has been shown multiple times to just freely copy and paste novel, copyrighted code; without attribution or conforming to license restrictions. That is unacceptable and deserving of legal countermeasures. I would have no problem with CoPilot copying only the code of people who have opened their code for that kind of use. But that's not what it does. Notable that Microsoft, its owner, is not training CoPilot on its own massive corpus of code. Just other people's code.
- mellosouls 4y ago
  "Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive." No. You are being abusive when you throw out insults to a commenter who argues something you disagree with - please don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, and check the HN guidelines before commenting further, as you are repeating the hostile and condescending tone and should know better.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Looking at this thread, I don't think you have much room to call someone else out for being condescending. I think it'd be useful for you to slow down and write a more considered position, taking time to address the valid concerns others have raised.
    - mellosouls 4y ago
      There are definitely valid concerns and counter arguments; they will be more powerful and persuasive when presented on their own merits rather than with the assumption and accusation the poster they are responding to is unethical, stupid or commenting in bad faith. I think I've been polite in response. However, as I started the thread with a comment that I guess was more provocative (and perhaps more personally felt by others here) than I intended, I'll accept your criticism and bow out.
pessimizer 4y ago
The coder that thinks that making the first decision about their own code entitles them to everyone else's.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Nice straw-men you're collecting there. First one: Uses of attribution and copyleft licenses are just ego-boosting, instead of legitimate protection of authorship against corporate piracy. Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive. Third strawmen: that people who oppose CoPilot in its current form just want to defend copyright around boilerplate stack-overflowish type code. All false. I can only assume... You're either too young and inexperienced to remember the early days of the copyleft, free software, and open source movements and why these licenses exist (and still need to exist)... or your values are so backwards that you just think it's Ok to harvest other people's hard work for your own (or your employer's) own profit. To be clear: There is no heuristic at work in something like CoPilot that can distinguish between boilerplate code and genuine innovation. It has been shown multiple times to just freely copy and paste novel, copyrighted code; without attribution or conforming to license restrictions. That is unacceptable and deserving of legal countermeasures. I would have no problem with CoPilot copying only the code of people who have opened their code for that kind of use. But that's not what it does. Notable that Microsoft, its owner, is not training CoPilot on its own massive corpus of code. Just other people's code.

mellosouls 4y ago
"Second: Criticism of said corporate exploitation of community work is the actual entitled behaviour. Oh, it's also abusive." No. You are being abusive when you throw out insults to a commenter who argues something you disagree with - please don't try and obfuscate what you were doing, and check the HN guidelines before commenting further, as you are repeating the hostile and condescending tone and should know better.
- acdha 4y ago
  Looking at this thread, I don't think you have much room to call someone else out for being condescending. I think it'd be useful for you to slow down and write a more considered position, taking time to address the valid concerns others have raised.
  - mellosouls 4y ago
    There are definitely valid concerns and counter arguments; they will be more powerful and persuasive when presented on their own merits rather than with the assumption and accusation the poster they are responding to is unethical, stupid or commenting in bad faith. I think I've been polite in response. However, as I started the thread with a comment that I guess was more provocative (and perhaps more personally felt by others here) than I intended, I'll accept your criticism and bow out.

pessimizer 4y ago

The coder that thinks that making the first decision about their own code entitles them to everyone else's.