skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
It is actually true, in the UK at least the legal definition of theft includes the deprivation of the owner of the property in question.

The copyright lobby hedge the term as "copyright theft" (i.e. not actual theft) in order to shift the societal understanding. Whish appears to have worked.

This is not a value judgement on copyright infringement. Just that technically it doesn't meet the legal definition of theft.

cf. The rather amusing satire of the "you wouldn't steal a handbag" campaign in the UK, which ran "you wouldn't download a bear!"
You aren't paid either to write unit tests in the private industry.

You are paid to write working code.
Bring back NeWS and we can eliminate the browser entirely.
Try using Ctrl+S and Ctrl+O for file save/load. There's `import` and `export` commands as well to do this, and there's even a `share` command to share your code via a URL!

eg. https://jamesl.me/atto/?code=10%20print%20%22Hello%2C%20Hack...

Edit: Funny to hear that you still read $ as string! Still kept that tradition in atto, though the use of $ on the end of variables is optional (variables with $ on the end will be casted to string, but sigil-less variables can be any type. % is used to cast to a number).
Other browsers.
i don't think that's necessarily obvious. most links submitted to HN from the github.com domain aren't authored by github.
Very simplistically, my understanding on these matters is:

"You know what you know."
Well, maybe the interpretation will change if the right people are pissed off.

At this point, how hard would it be to produce a structurally similar "content-aware continuation/fill" for audio producers, film makers, etc, which suggests audio snippets or film snippets, trained from copyrighted source material?

If prompted by a black screen with some white dots, the video tool could suggest a sequence of frames beginning with text streaming into the distance "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away ..." and continue from there.

Normally we don't try to train models to regurgitate their inputs, but if we actually tried, I'm sure one could be made to reproduce the White Album or Thriller or whatever else.
How does this cut off our access to the code?
To be precise, Moore’s Law says the number of transistors per unit cost doubles (every two years). https://newsroom.intel.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2018/...

A lot of the new processes have not had the same cost reductions. Also, some increase in transistor count is due to physically larger chips. Also, you have “Epyc Rome” on that graph, which actually isn’t a single chip but uses chiplets.
Wasn't that the entire premise of "Halt and Catch Fire"?
I did a stint in commercial lending so I know a little about Bylaws and operating agreements. Why not just write that in there? VC's are not banks so they have a bit more flexibility in terms of what they'll accept.
>"Blah blah blah. One weird case and you want to throw away the complete system.

Who said anything about "throwing away a system". Just fix the fucking particular case. I am pretty sure if shit like this happened to their president it would've been handled in a minute. Taking away her rights was illegal in a first place anyways.

>"Not in France nor in the USA. Try to move around the USA without a birth certificate"

Under "move" I meant just simply walking on a street without ID. Not things like buying a house. If one can be charged for simply walking on a street without ID the country is fucked.
Who said it was a law?
Ask HN: Could Copilot be an additional vector for supply chain attacks?
Ask HN: Best motorized sit/stand desk?
Hi HN - Does anyone have a motorized sit/stand desk they're in love with, and/or recommendations for the top models to consider? Thanks!
As far as IP protections go, they're similar, but the incentives are so different that you get songwriters going to court over bits of melodies that might be worth millions. Outside of quantitative trading, it's hard to find an example of 10 lines of code that are worth millions and couldn't easily be replaced with another implementation.
Or, you know, the citizens of hyper progressive Portland, Oregon, who voted down a measure to finally fluoridate the city’s tap water less than 10 years ago.
Now that the facility of the digital tooling is more granular and refined, and theres no shortage of weak-minded grunts that are powertrippin to do what theyre told, by the telepath aliens in human disguise or transdimensionals with the ability to manipulate all digital processes or the government, as zealous intern lords over the online conversation or jannies of pre-crime trends, this is all now easier to implement when it will matter the most to our future: silencing anti-alien dissent after "arrival."

The Roswell trojan horse and social infiltration to pressure the farce of 2020, is paying off. Abductees/contactees with negative experiences of the 40+ species will be flagged as "agents of "disinformation" and limited for "preemption of public criticism."

https://reclaimthenet.org/world-economic-forum-makes-censors...

https://fair.org/home/us-censorship-is-increasingly-official...

https://archive.vn/WVDGU

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of-intellectual-capture...
Could some one who down voted this elaborate on their reasoning?

I can no longer edit the above post but it looks like the parent post I was referring to is no longer down voted.
It's all there! Try the `import` and `export` commands. Ctrl+O and Ctrl+S work as well, provided that the files end with .atto (unless you set your file open dialog to search for all files). `share` also lets you distribute your code via a copyable link, too!

I was thinking it would be quite fun to hook up a USB floppy disk reader to my computer and save/load atto programs the oldscool way... Possibly could use one of those backup tape drives, too!
It was a bit of a tongue in cheek comment. It’s very unlikely they were even planning this when they bought GitHub. While you’re completely right about their rationale, a lot of people were at the time concerned about the acquisition, and it feels now a bit short sighted to burn all the good will they have generated by an act like this which undermines open source.
I thought the article was well written. Can I suggest trying again?

The point was not tho explain HOW to avoid planes crashing, it was to explain how he saw his job not that of providing super-clear weather reports ,but focusing the reports on factors that would cause problems for pilots.
Yes! Thank you. I should have clarified that I meant within the US.
I wasn't trying to say otherwise - it's a huge advantage to be this size, with regards to security. It would have taken me years at Dropbox to accomplish things that take a weekend now.
Imagine the worst possible outcome and do the opposite. That will light your focus on what matters.

I think that's the essence of the article.
> this is a machine learning model that likes to copy/paste not just tiny bits of code but entire functions out of other peoples' projects

Github could make a blacklist and tell Copilot never to suggest that code. Problem solved. You use one of the other 9 suggestions.
Yeah, I'd say watch the blog, I have some draft posts written up.
I second the DMCA, it is ridiculous.
But LTO is fine? I was going to ask if it was because it's not intended as a backup, but that's not even true, this is intended as a backup on a long time scale.
There's an example called "fetch_tweets.py" at the bottom of page on https://copilot.github.com/ that gets it wrong:

def fetch_tweets_from_user(user_name):
# deleted some lines here...
# fetch tweets
tweets = api.user_timeline(screen_name=user, count=200,
include_rts=False)

screen_name=user there isn't right.

It's a nit, but it is interesting how many of the hand-picked examples on that page aren't right. Since they were hand-picked, presumably to show the product off.
I think the law will allow what copilot eventually becomes. As others have said, right now, it's too apt to reproduce code verbatim.
>having a functional uterus has no bearing on whether you're the one who is considering an abortion.

I'm not sure how you can make that statement seriously. The only situation where one might want or need to consider terminating a pregnancy is if you have a functional female reproductive system.

Each individual should make those decisions for themselves without a bunch of busybodies telling them what they should do with their own bodies.

As for potential fathers and medical professionals, their opinions may be useful to the person considering such a procedure, but it isn't their body and, as such, that's an advisory situation at most.

>And the other reply also interpreted you as saying men shouldn't comment on the issue and went uncorrected.

Which doesn't make a lot of sense, since I (as a male) was, in fact, commenting on the issue. Or did you miss that part?

People should absolutely be able to express their opinions.

However, when it comes to a specific person considering a specific procedure (whether that be a pregnancy termination, a haircut or removal of a hangnail), the decision necessarily should be that of the specific person involved, and the opinions of others aren't at all relevant.

That's my point. If you can and/or do become pregnant, then the decision whether to terminate or not is yours alone -- but only for your own body.

If you don't have a functional female reproductive system, such decisions are irrelevant to you. If you do have a functional female reproductive system, how that system is used (or not) is completely up to the individual involved and no one should have any decision making power over how another person's body is used.

Feel free to disagree with my position and make your opinions clear. But when it comes to a specific person making a specific decision about their own body, you have no say unless it's your body.

>I misunderstood, but I think you could have been clearer.

That's entirely likely. I tried to elucidate my point. If I failed to do so, my apologies. I attempted to do so again in this comment. I hope I was clearer this time.
The irony of it all is that their code will find its way into the next Common Crawl release anyway and that's used to train GPT-3, which in turn forms the basis of OpenAI Codex, which is the product that CoPilot builds on...

So hosting elsewhere might not safe your code from ending up deep in the bowels of some corporate black-box ML model that occasionally regurgitates your IP if accidentally given the wrong (right?) prompt.

If you make your code public, you basically accept that someone will copy it verbatim. Other companies still might have it in their closed source product somewhere, even if it's just accidental copypasta from SO.
> I have a SoundCloud and books and whatnot I could promote here.

You just did.
> reusing GPL3 is a no-go for commercial companies

The GPL is completely compatible with commercial use. You just need to share modifications to the source with anyone you share the binary with. Many tech companies make extensive use of GPL software, and since they are not providing binaries to their end users they don't even have to share their changes to the source.

Even the AGPL, which does require you to share the source with users, still completely allows commercial use (though not compatible with as many business models).
Depends on where you work. The cult of unit testing is pervasive in the Bay Area, at least. It doesn’t result in noticeably better software.
Fun fact: In Japanese there is no "Si" sound and the closest is "Shi", so "Siri" is pronounced "Shiri". You know what else is pronounced "Shiri" in Japanese? Buttocks (尻).
You know at first glance I would say this isn't true, since SWOT analysis covers this pretty well. Then again, I didn't learn SWOT in any programming class, it was in business classes.
The devs are actively anti-folder structure handling within Darktable[1], which is why I still have to use Digikam or a file manager and then leave my computer for a few hours to re-import my entire collection every so often.

Re. UI, open source programs almost always end up on the side of technically correct rather than user friendly. So we're served a bunch of jargon with no easy way to find out more other than searching the web and hoping that whichever term they use has a single meaning, is only used in this context, and is used universally rather than some other term. These things are rarely all true at the same time.

All that said, Darktable is great for my simple use, and it's my main photo developing application.

[1] https://www.darktable.org/about/faq/#faq-rename-files
There is a difference when human learns vs multi billion dollar company train their models without paying a penny.

Saying it is just like user, maybe they start paying taxes like individuals without access to creative accountants pay.

Leeches without morals - Micro$oft
Generating Dynamic CI Pipelines with Jsonnet and Tekton/Kubernetes
Yeah, and https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/github-terms-o... has this language:

This license includes the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers; share it with other users; and perform it, in case Your Content is something like music or video.

This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. [...]

So, it's not clear if they could charge for Copilot, given that last line, but indexing, analysis, and sharing with other users are all included.
Yup, you've pretty much summed up Safari really well there. I've come across sooo many annoyances when supporting Safari that I do wonder how the developers of the Apple website etc. don't get annoyed at the lack of useful support of their own browser themselves!
No, because the M1 is new.
> While Firefox only finally brought proper color management last month.

This was just a flag they turned on (on macOS?) to treat untagged images and CSS colors as sRGB. It's been available for everyone on all platforms since Firefox 3.5, which was released in 2009.

I believe the argument for not enabling it is that supposedly there are a lot of Windows systems out there with incorrect color profiles installed, and doing color management on every image on the web makes that suddenly very obvious. Chrome has faced quite a bit of user rage over this, and still has a setting to allow users to force the browser to treat their screen as sRGB for that reason. People like their oversaturated colors.

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Gfx.color_management.enabled
NeRFs (neural radiance fields) are neural nets that exactly encode one input, kind of like a JPEG. They can reconstruct from novel viewpoints.
Rediffusion: L'histoire de BSD Unix par iMilnb
Rutracker has everything.
Your recollection is off, majorly. I'd recommend looking up the origins of the FSF/GPL/Copyleft. The entire movement essentially got started because Stallman gave Symbolics his (public domain) Lisp interpreter, then Symbolics improved it but refused to share the improvements.

"No restrictions" has never been the goal and to claim that they're egoistic hypocrites who are just scared for their own livelihood because of this is just an absurd strawman.
We really should de-learn much of the enlightenment period. The fantastical thinking of this era should never have been taken as fact.

As a single species we lost the plot and gave in to the theatrics of politics.
That quote is basically entirely nonsensical. 'copyright' hasn't decided anything (nor has any legislative body nor the courts). All that's happened is that OpenAI has put forward an argument that using large quantities of media scraped from the internet as training data is fair use. This argument for the most part does not rely on the human vs machine distinction (in fact it leans on the idea that the process is not so different from a human learning). The main place this comes up is the final test of damage to the original in terms of lost market share where it's argued that because it's a machine consuming the content there's no loss of audience to the creator (which is probably better phrased as the people training the neural net weren't going to pay for it anyway). A lot does ride on the idea that the neural net, if 'well designed', does not generally regurgitate its training data verbatim, which is in fairly hot dispute at the moment. OpenAI somewhat punts on this situation and basically says the output may infringe copyright in this case, but the copyright holder should sue whoever's generating and using the output from the net, not the person who trained and distributed the net.
There is a lot of formal method usage in smart contracts. Maker DAO for example did a full formal verification of their stuff, and there is a lot of talk within the security community about it.
Same here. I worked at a NAS storage (NFS) vendor and this was a common practice. Could not look at server implementation in Linux kernel and open source NFS client team could not look at proprietary server code.
I think it's a matter of environment, not age. If you're more used to the Windows ecosystem, you'd think of PowerShell by default; if you're more used to the Linux ecosystem, you'd think of PostScript by default. PowerShell (and dotnet in general) doesn't have much relevance to those who run Linux exclusively, while PostScript doesn't have as much relevance to those who run Windows exclusively (unless you have to deal with certain kinds of printers).
see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27709788
It would be noticeable if all content authors were experienced in the medium, but in the transitional period there would be little obvious difference, because the entire culture of digital imaging, including almost all existing content, is based around the limitations of RGB displays and images.

If you want a somewhat relevant test, you can try comparing images produced by a photo printer with images printed in old newspapers. Having a larger gamut makes the former much more vibrant.

Current displays produce very intense orangish-red, purplish-blue, yellowish-green, and reddish-purple colors. So the differences with a hypothetical >5-primary display are going to be most noticeable in the blue-green range, and oranges and yellows.
To me it seems, the whole subject requires additional consideration in licensing. It is a little like applying telephone based law to the internet. It will not 100% fit.

If the creators interests are not clearly expressed anymore with a license, we need updates to the license texts.

Let's look at MIT:

____________________

"Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
[...]

____________________

From the license text alone, it would not be clear to me, why anyone could claim that the OpenAI codex or the Github Copilot would require attribution to any of the used MIT source code to generate the AI model. The AI model is simply not a copy of the source or of a portion thereof. It is essentially a mathematical / statistical analysis of it.

Now what about any generated new source? How similar does it need to be to any source to be a copy? At what size of the generated code it qualifies to be a copy instead of a snippet of industry best practice?

Where does the responsibility for attribution lie? Should we treat the AI code generation models like a copy & paste program? Usually you cannot really say where the copy came from 100% - how do you know what factors influenced it?
My non-expert reading of the AGPL seems to indicate that using AGPL code in a commercial project is find as long as you don't change it. GitHub wouldn't necessarily have needed to change it to include it in a data set, so I'm not sure there's a license violation.

However the gray area is that the massive data set of which it is a part will spit out new code that has, in some way big or small, been influence by the AGPL code, which... well, I don't think that sort of use was anticipated by the terms of AGPL. I see can reasonable arguments in both directions. Personally though, I would favor an interpretation that limits GitHub's use for commercial purposes, if not for strictly licensing restrictions then at least for the spirit of these licenses.

In truth, I would very much have liked GitHub to gone out big & loud with an aggressive awareness campaign asking repo owner to opt-in to the use of their code for this. Again, for pure opens source licenses I don't thing that would be required, but I still think it would be the right thing to do. And certainly less damaging to their reputation & future hesitancy for project maintainers to trust GitHub with their code.

I don't think this will be a tipping point by itself, but if this behavioral pattern continues I could imagine devs big & small shifting to hosted or on-prem instances of things like GitLab.
> Your license means nothing if you can't defend it.

It's okay to commit crimes if the victims are poor enough? (And yet what you've said is still true.)
And if we use your co2 per mile approach we can all conclude that a rocket is the way to travel.

People judge these things in terms of how much co2 is emitted by industry, companies, individuals etc. The particular mechanism of emissions is not that relevant. Air ambulance flights are treated differently to private jets carrying bankers.
Maybe now is the time to release a GPLv4 extending-restricting-relating the four freedoms to non-humans.

I expect the best lawyers from Microsoft have had a look into this and maybe there a weaknesses in GPLv3 ready to exploit for corporate AIs. What is the response from the FSF?
This is somehow inverse logic. Does rape victim needs authority to voice raping in order to validate it?
What is there that is not solid, CoPilot is using community code that is under GPL licence therefore Microsoft should not be able to charge for CoPilot but give it for free, or not create another revenue stream.
Is it not obvious that you can care about a post on HN without caring about the page it links to?

Back away from this specific situation for a second: If you would ignore something entirely if it wasn't being shoved in your face, complaining about it being shoved in your face and saying it's stupid wouldn't mean you suddenly "care" about the underlying item.

(And no, I'm not saying that an HN post is shoved in your face. It's a more extreme example to make the point more clear.)
Self-destructing messages only really work if you trust every person who reads them AND their devices.
They can somewhat limit exposure (especially in obscurity) but also introduce the risk of establishing unwarranted perceptions of security.
how else do you think they can make the windows 11 look new?
Seems to me like they need to back out of this fast and at very least limit it such that it is only trained and then used on "license compatible" projects. eg: train it in isolation on MIT licensed projects and then have the user explicitly confirm what license the code they are working on is to enable it. Possibly they even need to auto-enable a mechanism to detect when code has been reused verbatim and enable some kind of attribution (or respect for other constraints) where that is required by the license.