3 ms·

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Any human contributor can also plagiarize closed source code they have access to. And they cannot "transfer" said code to

Sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. Any human contributor can also plagiarize closed source code they have access to. And they cannot "transfer" said code to an open source project as they do not own it. So it's not clear what "elephant in the room" you are highlighting that is unique to A.I. The copyrightability isn't the issue as an open source project can never obtain copyright of plagiarized code regardless of whether the person who contributed it is human or an A.I.

igniuss 8mo ago
a human can still be held accountable though, github copilot running amock less so
- falcor84 8mo ago
  If you pay for Copilot Business/Enterprise, they actually offer IP indemnification and support in court, if needed, which is more accountability than you would get from human contributors. https://resources.github.com/learn/pathways/copilot/essentials/establishing-trust-in-using-github-copilot/ https://resources.github.com/learn/pathways/copilot/essentia...
  - christoph-heiss 8mo ago
    I think that they felt the need to offer such a service says everything, basically admitting that LLMs just plagiarize and violate licenses.
    - throwaway613746 8mo ago
      [dead]
  - jayd16 8mo ago
    That covers any random contribution claiming to be AI?
    - falcor84 8mo ago
      Their docs say: > If any suggestion made by GitHub Copilot is challenged as infringing on third-party intellectual property (IP) rights, our contractual terms are designed to shield you. I'm not actually aware of a situation where this was needed, but I assume that MS might have some tools to check whether a given suggestion was, or is likely to have been, generated by Copilot, rather than some other AI.
  - blibble 8mo ago
    9 lines of code came close to costing Google $8.8 billion how much use do you think these indemnification clauses will be if training ends up being ruled as not fair-use?
    - falcor84 8mo ago
      Are you concerned that this will bankrupt Microsoft?
      - blibble 8mo ago
        be nice, wouldn't it? poetic justice for a company founded on the idea of not stealing software
      - tsimionescu 8mo ago
        I think they're afraid they will have to sue Microsoft to get them to abide by the promise to come to their defense in another suit.
heavyset_go 8mo ago
Human beings can create copyrightable code. As per the US Copyright Office, LLMs can never create copyrightable code. Humans can create copyrightable code from LLM output if they use their human creativity to significantly modify the output.

igniuss 8mo ago

a human can still be held accountable though, github copilot running amock less so

falcor84 8mo ago
If you pay for Copilot Business/Enterprise, they actually offer IP indemnification and support in court, if needed, which is more accountability than you would get from human contributors. https://resources.github.com/learn/pathways/copilot/essentials/establishing-trust-in-using-github-copilot/ https://resources.github.com/learn/pathways/copilot/essentia...
- christoph-heiss 8mo ago
  I think that they felt the need to offer such a service says everything, basically admitting that LLMs just plagiarize and violate licenses.
  - throwaway613746 8mo ago
    [dead]
- jayd16 8mo ago
  That covers any random contribution claiming to be AI?
  - falcor84 8mo ago
    Their docs say: > If any suggestion made by GitHub Copilot is challenged as infringing on third-party intellectual property (IP) rights, our contractual terms are designed to shield you. I'm not actually aware of a situation where this was needed, but I assume that MS might have some tools to check whether a given suggestion was, or is likely to have been, generated by Copilot, rather than some other AI.
- blibble 8mo ago
  9 lines of code came close to costing Google $8.8 billion how much use do you think these indemnification clauses will be if training ends up being ruled as not fair-use?
  - falcor84 8mo ago
    Are you concerned that this will bankrupt Microsoft?
    - blibble 8mo ago
      be nice, wouldn't it? poetic justice for a company founded on the idea of not stealing software
    - tsimionescu 8mo ago
      I think they're afraid they will have to sue Microsoft to get them to abide by the promise to come to their defense in another suit.

heavyset_go 8mo ago

Human beings can create copyrightable code. As per the US Copyright Office, LLMs can never create copyrightable code. Humans can create copyrightable code from LLM output if they use their human creativity to significantly modify the output.