GitHub confirmed using all public code for training copilot regardless license

Dupe: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27769440" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=27769440</a>

Do you remember when someone made a vim extension that would autocomplete code with Stack Overflow answers, as a joke? Why is it that in 2021 we&#x27;re taking this kind of tool seriously? Have we reduced our field and craft to something that can just be autocompleted?

Does the licence make a difference regarding whether or not Copilot code is legal to use? To my understanding, the crux of the argument comes down to whether data crunched down and regurgitated by machine learning algorithms retains its licence - regardless of what it is.<p>I suppose if we assume it retains it, then TFA&#x27;s claim creates a further question of how the hell anyone using copilot can conform to this unholy mixture of all the licences. But that&#x27;s a big assumption at this point.

I don&#x27;t understand the argument here.<p>Yes, sometimes code is returned that is a verbatim reproduction of the training data. This can be prevented if need be.<p>What I really don&#x27;t understand is how some people are complaining about GPL&#x27;ed code being used for training.<p>What&#x27;s the difference between a machine looking at the code and learning from it and a human being doing the same. As long as the code isn&#x27;t patented, there&#x27;s no reason why I shouldn&#x27;t be able to look at GPL&#x27;ed code and implement the idea using my own code.<p>In other words, is - according to those who think using GPL&#x27;ed code for ML training - <i>every</i> implementation a derived work if I looked at GPL&#x27;ed code that implemented the same algorithm? Where&#x27;s the line that separates plagiarism from original work? Is there even such a line? Does it matter whether the GPL&#x27;ed code is encoded in human neurons or network weights after looking at it and if so, why?

Is there nuance here in what is used to train vs what is used in completions? For example, if all public code was used to train a ML model, but then the autocomplete feature only pasted in uniquely generated or licensed code, that would be different than if it pasted in verbatim licensed code without attribution or whatever the license requires.<p>It could be like a dev reading public code enough to understand it, but then coming up with her own implementation. Not saying copilot works that way - I haven’t tested it yet. But could be one nuance here.

The cat (this technology) is coming out of the bag one way or another. It&#x27;s just too useful. Where is it written that inspiring a language model with data is not just as infringing as copy and paste? It&#x27;s a very grey line. Public facing open-source code &amp; media is going to be learned by language models because they&#x27;re exposed to them. I&#x27;m fully expecting that if I begin a story and put it on my blog or on github, and if I go away for 5 years, I&#x27;ll see it completed for me when I return.

So, if any public code is allowed and we let it slip through. Google can say for example see all text on Google Docs and __sell__ a solution that generates text for you. Is this allowed?<p>What about images?

Anyone can search and browse public code and copy and paste it into their own project regardless of license, too.

Could a solution to the license problem be that the auto-completion also shows you the code&#x27;s license?

Why wouldn&#x27;t they use the code you gave them permission to use by agreeing to their TOS?

I really don&#x27;t know why people thought a README file is going to stop one of the largest companies on the planet from slurping up all its hosted code and doing what it wants with it.

Google has trained their web search on much of the internet. Is it problematic?