3 ms·
In the case of ChatGPT, you can be almost sure that if a non-trivial amount of code works in production then it's an unlicensed paraphrase of some human written
by manholio 4y ago
In the case of ChatGPT, you can be almost sure that if a non-trivial amount of code works in production then it's an unlicensed paraphrase of some human written code. It treats code (and everything else) like prose, hence the atrocious results in the original story.
That does not mean other coding-optimized AI models won't be able to do much more, symbolic reasoning about the data, maintaining consistent variable and function names, understand libraries, respecting language constraints and invariants etc.
- speedgoose 4y agoI think ChatGPT switch to OpenAI codex when it writes code. It’s the same model that GitHub Copilot uses.
- williamcotton 4y agoThere’s no such thing as an “unlicensed paraphrase” of small snippets of utilitarian software, at least in US copyright law. You might have moral qualms with this but you won’t find much of any support from the court system.
- manholio 4y agoIt's clearly a derived work, since the apparatus that has produced the work (the AI model) can only function when supplied with copyrighted works - in fact it cannot exists without copious amounts of such works. If there is even a passing semblance between a source work and the output, such as, for example, similar code structure and different variable names, then you are legally fucked. I'm sure courts will clear this mess up really soon, and I'm betting money the rulings won't subscribe to the "it's mine now" mantra of the AI crowd.
- speedgoose 4y agoIs there any planned court case about the copyright fair use question ?
- williamcotton 4y agoDo you actually want to bet money on this? I’m willing to play!