From efe67e9136356db0c52316c3557a5ce28bbd9e14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rohan Kumar Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 08:55:43 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] New note: Re: GH copilot takes --- content/notes/re-gh-copilot-takes.md | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) create mode 100644 content/notes/re-gh-copilot-takes.md diff --git a/content/notes/re-gh-copilot-takes.md b/content/notes/re-gh-copilot-takes.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..0f39560 --- /dev/null +++ b/content/notes/re-gh-copilot-takes.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +--- +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: }}">An experiment to test GitHub Copilot's legality. +