• 0 Posts
  • 20 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 3rd, 2024

help-circle



  • I don’t see how this wouldn’t be derivative work. I highly doubt a robust, commercial software solution using AI-generated code would not have modified that code. I use AI to generate boilerplate code for my side projects, and it’s exceedingly rare that its product is 100% correct. Since that generated code is not copyrightable, it’s public domain, and now I’m creating a derived work from it, so that derived work is mine.

    As AI gets better at generating code and we can directly use it without modification, this may become an issue. Or maybe not. Maybe once the AI is that good, you no longer have software companies, since you can just generate the code you need, so software development as a business becomes obsolete, like the old human profession of “computer.”


  • This makes sense to me, and is in line with recent interpretations about AI-generated artwork. Basically, if a human directly creates something, it’s protected by copyright. But if someone makes a thing that itself creates something, that secondary work is not protected by copyright. AI-generated artwork is an extreme example of this, but if that’s the framework, applying it to data newly generated by any code seems reasonable.

    This wouldn’t/shouldn’t apply to something like compression, where you start with a work directly created by someone, apply an algorithm to transform it into a compressed state, and then apply another algorithm to transform the data back into the original work. That original work was still created by someone and so should be protected by copyright. But a novel generation of data, like the game state in memory during the execution of the game’s programming, was never directly created by someone, and so isn’t protected.




  • The judge also noted that the cited study itself mentions that GitHub Copilot “rarely emits memorised code in benign situations.”

    “Rarely” is not zero. This looks like it’s opening a loophole to copying open source code with strong copyleft licenses like the GPL:

    1. Find OSS code you want to copy
    2. Set up conditions for Copilot to reproduce code
    3. Copy code into your commercial product
    4. When sued, just claim Copilot generated the code

    Depending on how good your lawyers are, 2 is optional. And bingo! All the OSS code you want without those pesky restrictive licenses.

    In fact, I wonder if there’s a way to automate step 2. Some way to analyze an OSS GitHub repo to generate inputs for Copilot that will then regurgitate that same repo.







  • But people aren’t using the web the same way they were at inception. These big companies have built closed source, centralized systems on top of the decentralized infrastructure to serve new use-cases that weren’t envisioned in the original standards. People like these new use-cases, so we need new standards, etc., to facilitate a re-decentralization of data and features in these new use-cases if we want the most used parts of the web to maintain their openness.

    I don’t think it’s fair to lay the blame on the common user for the centralization of their data, when only the centralized systems have been providing the capabilities they want until very recently (where the open alternatives have arisen partly because of new standards like ActivityPub).



  • People go through stages as they fall into the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Early in the decent they are still engaging in healthy reasoning patterns that I won’t go so far as to say are “logical” or “rational,” but they are still flexible enough to be diverted from the conspiracies. There’s always a reason they start down that path: maybe someone close to them got badly sick, maybe they just had a child and are seeking out the best ways to protect them. If you can sit down with them and engage with them on this underlying cause for concern in an empathetic way, that’s when you can change their mind and keep them in the zone of legitimate science and medicine. If they react to every discussion as a confrontation, they are beyond the point that bringing scientific evidence to them will change their mind.




  • ignirtoq@fedia.iotoScience Memes@mander.xyzlaunch him anyway
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    Cut the extra inch off the long side to get a 4" square, then cut the remaining 1" x 4" piece into 4 1" squares. The boy never said the squares had to be the same size.

    If the triangles have already been cut, it’s a peanut butter sandwich: use peanut butter on the edges to glue it back together and cut the squares. The child gave you a challenge, think outside the box!