4 ms·

> Maybe people wouldn't be so angry about an AI trained on mostly open source code if said AI was open source, and not a proprietary SaaS. Exactly, the point i

> Maybe people wouldn't be so angry about an AI trained on mostly open source code if said AI was open source, and not a proprietary SaaS. Exactly, the point is this one. Open-source doesn't mean liability free, you still have to comply to the license!

judge2020 4y ago
You don't if you are creating an entirely new work of art based solely on the knowledge and patterns you've learned from looking at other code, ie. a human learning to code by looking at millions of pages of code on GitHub; whether or not AI can learn in this way is the point of contention for AI art/code/chat generators.
- flohofwoe 4y ago
  If the AI "independently" comes up with a 1:1 copy of some piece of copyrighted code, would this be a copyright violation or not? There's a reason why some programmers don't even look at proprietary source code leaks as to not accidentally introduce copyright violations into their own code.
  - judge2020 4y ago
    > would this be a copyright violation or not? It would be. When a human does this, does it invalidate the human's ability to create any new work at all? Should we chain up anyone who violated copyright by perfectly recalling someone's art in memory and re-drawing it from heart, since we cannot trust them to ever create an original work again?
    - flohofwoe 4y ago
      Copyright is (mostly) not about copying for your own use, but about commercial exploitation. This topic has been discussed to death since at least the Sony Walkman. Nothing of this is new or different just because an algorithm is now involved. If you copy for your own use only, that's totally fine - or at most a legal greyzone, in the end nobody will care about such personal use copies. If you use AI to generate pretty pictures to hang up in your home, totally fine too. As soon as you start making money with this stuff though it becomes an actual problem. It's really as simple as that. Even the 'generative art aspect' has already been settled long ago when music sampling became popular and required a legal framework.
    - chasing 4y ago
      Software and human beings are two different sorts of things and should be treated differently.
- chasing 4y ago
  Human minds can commit copyright infringement without realizing by it if they regurgitate parts of something someone has already created. Google “George Harrison.”
- vb-8448 4y ago
  The `human learning` argument comes a lot in every discussion about copilot, but it's a completely different thing, and misleading. `Human learning` involves understanding beyond the words and sentences, copilot doesn't know anything about our world.
- avgcorrection 4y ago
  The trick here is to implicitly personify the AI (a program) by comparing it to a human. Because they are both “learning”. There’s no reason why we should have the same standards for programs and humans based on metaphors. If I log in to a website three times a day, I am simply using a website. If a program logs in to a website three thousand times in the span of a second from multiple IP addresses, that’s probably a DOS attempt.

judge2020 4y ago

You don't if you are creating an entirely new work of art based solely on the knowledge and patterns you've learned from looking at other code, ie. a human learning to code by looking at millions of pages of code on GitHub; whether or not AI can learn in this way is the point of contention for AI art/code/chat generators.

flohofwoe 4y ago
If the AI "independently" comes up with a 1:1 copy of some piece of copyrighted code, would this be a copyright violation or not? There's a reason why some programmers don't even look at proprietary source code leaks as to not accidentally introduce copyright violations into their own code.
- judge2020 4y ago
  > would this be a copyright violation or not? It would be. When a human does this, does it invalidate the human's ability to create any new work at all? Should we chain up anyone who violated copyright by perfectly recalling someone's art in memory and re-drawing it from heart, since we cannot trust them to ever create an original work again?
  - flohofwoe 4y ago
    Copyright is (mostly) not about copying for your own use, but about commercial exploitation. This topic has been discussed to death since at least the Sony Walkman. Nothing of this is new or different just because an algorithm is now involved. If you copy for your own use only, that's totally fine - or at most a legal greyzone, in the end nobody will care about such personal use copies. If you use AI to generate pretty pictures to hang up in your home, totally fine too. As soon as you start making money with this stuff though it becomes an actual problem. It's really as simple as that. Even the 'generative art aspect' has already been settled long ago when music sampling became popular and required a legal framework.
  - chasing 4y ago
    Software and human beings are two different sorts of things and should be treated differently.
chasing 4y ago
Human minds can commit copyright infringement without realizing by it if they regurgitate parts of something someone has already created. Google “George Harrison.”
vb-8448 4y ago
The `human learning` argument comes a lot in every discussion about copilot, but it's a completely different thing, and misleading. `Human learning` involves understanding beyond the words and sentences, copilot doesn't know anything about our world.
avgcorrection 4y ago
The trick here is to implicitly personify the AI (a program) by comparing it to a human. Because they are both “learning”. There’s no reason why we should have the same standards for programs and humans based on metaphors. If I log in to a website three times a day, I am simply using a website. If a program logs in to a website three thousand times in the span of a second from multiple IP addresses, that’s probably a DOS attempt.