mirror of
https://git.sr.ht/~seirdy/seirdy.one
synced 2024-11-10 08:12:11 +00:00
18 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
18 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
title: "Re: GH Copilot takes"
|
||
|
|
date: 2022-07-20T08:55:38-07:00
|
||
|
|
replyURI: "https://mastodon.social/@humanetech/108677838939825183"
|
||
|
|
replyTitle: "Fully IANAL philosophical showerthoughts"
|
||
|
|
replyType: "SocialMediaPosting"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthor: "Humane Tech Now"
|
||
|
|
replyAuthorURI: "https://mastodon.social/@humanetech"
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
> They are like workers that are hired.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Laws around "works for hire" come with their own copyright baggage that assumes workers are actual people; for instance, these laws include mechanisms by which workers can claim copyright themselves.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I'm not opposed to the general principle of training a model on copyrighted works potentially being fair use; however, the generated works would need to be sufficiently novel or seemingly "creative" by human standards for it to work. Otherwise, you're in "derived work" territory. This, I think, is a major difference between the likes of DALL-E and Midjourney, and the likes of Copilot.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
I personally found all the discourse way too hilarious, and wrote a satirical article on it only to get clobbered by Poe's Law: <cite><a href="{{<relref "/posts/experiment-copilot-legality">}}">An experiment to test GitHub Copilot's legality</a></cite>.
|
||
|
|
|