3 ms·
It reads like the judge required them to show it happened to their code, not to any code in general. That's a much higher bar. There are thousands of instances
by wongarsu 2y ago
It reads like the judge required them to show it happened to their code, not to any code in general. That's a much higher bar. There are thousands of instances of fast inverse square root in the training data but only one copy of your random github repositories. Getting to model to reproduce your code verbatim might be possible for all we know, but it isn't trivial.
- whimsicalism 2y agoof course for standing. but it seems like with the right plaintiffs this could have gone forward
- Dylan16807 2y agoIf it only copies code that has been widely stolen already then that's a lot weaker of a case and is something they can do a lot to prevent on a technical level.
- account42 2y agoCode that has been copied widely != code that has been widely stolen. Open source licenses allow sharing under certain conditions.
- brookst 2y agoBut that’s like saying my lawsuit alleging Taylor Swift copied my song could have gone forward with a plaintiff who had, years ago, written a song similar to what Ms. Swift recorded recently. That”s true, but perhaps the lesson here is that damages that hinge on statistically rare victims should not extrapolated out to provide windfalls for people who have not been harmed.
- whimsicalism 2y agoi think that is a weak analogy and also unnecessary bc it is already clear what i am saying
- Suppafly 2y ago>It reads like the judge required them to show it happened to their code, not to any code in general. Rightly so, you have to show some sort of damage to sue someone, not just theoretical damages.
- sleepybrett 2y agoIt could be forced, of course. I can republish my copyrighted code millions of times all over the internet. Next time they retrain there is a good chance my code will end up in their corpus, maybe many many times, reinforcing it statistically.