From f760470fef016cb1da39ef8a9dbcff852f2c340d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Rohan Kumar Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2022 21:54:58 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] typos and a correciton on eloquence --- content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.gmi | 8 ++++++-- content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.md | 13 +++++++++++-- 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.gmi b/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.gmi index 1cb4a93..477a052 100644 --- a/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.gmi +++ b/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.gmi @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ I am not a lawyer. This post is satirical commentary on: * The absurdity of Microsoft and OpenAI’s legal justification for GitHub Copilot. * The oversimplifications people use to argue against GitHub Copilot (I don’t like it when people agree with me for the wrong reasons). * The relationship between capital and legal outcomes. -* How civil cases seem like sporting events where people “win” or “lose”, rather than opportunities improve our understanding of law. +* How civil cases seem like sporting events where people “win” or “lose”, rather than opportunities to improve our understanding of law. In the process, I intentionally misrepresent how the judicial system works: I portray the system the way people like to imagine it works. Please don’t make any important legal decisions based on anything I say. @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ If this succeeds, we have new legal justification that GitHub Copilot is illegal ### Part One: set a precedent -1. Train a modern text-to-spec (TTS) engine using the voice a proprietary one made by a company with a small legal budget. Keep the model’s internals hidden. +1. Train a modern text-to-speech (TTS) engine using the voice a proprietary one made by a company with a small legal budget. Keep the model’s internals hidden. 2. Then release the final TTS under a permissive license. Remember, we’re still keeping the machine-learning model hidden! 3. Wait for that company to file suit (or file an anticipatory suit against them; it's common for declaratory judgement regarding intellectual property rights). 4. Win or lose the case. @@ -101,6 +101,10 @@ If we _lose_ both cases: Microsoft does not have the legal high ground. We have Either way, it’s an absolute win for free software. Taking down Copilot protects copyleft from enabling proprietary derivatives (and by extension, protects software freedom). But if we accidentally win these two low-stakes “test” cases, we still gain something else: we can liberate huge swaths of proprietary software, starting with speech synthesizers. +## Corrections + +It's come to my attention that Eloquence may or may not still belong to Nuance. Further research is needed. + ## Footnotes 1. I doubt anybody worth their salt would count on a company to hold itself accountable, but at least they tried. diff --git a/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.md b/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.md index 6946455..14be1f0 100644 --- a/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.md +++ b/content/posts/experiment-copilot-legality.md @@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ I am not a lawyer. This post is satirical commentary on: - The absurdity of Microsoft and OpenAI's legal justification for GitHub Copilot. - The oversimplifications people use to argue against GitHub Copilot (I don't like it when people agree with me for the wrong reasons). - The relationship between capital and legal outcomes. -- How civil cases seem like sporting events where people "win" or "lose", rather than opportunities improve our understanding of law. +- How civil cases seem like sporting events where people "win" or "lose", rather than opportunities to improve our understanding of law. In the process, I intentionally misrepresent how the judicial system works: I portray the system the way people like to imagine it works. Please don't make any important legal decisions based on anything I say. @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ If this succeeds, we have new legal justification that GitHub Copilot is illegal ### Part One: set a precedent -1. Train a modern text-to-spec (TTS) engine using the voice a proprietary one made by a company with a small legal budget. Keep the model's internals hidden. +1. Train a modern text-to-speech (TTS) engine using the voice a proprietary one made by a company with a small legal budget. Keep the model's internals hidden. 2. Then release the final TTS under a permissive license. Remember, we're still keeping the machine-learning model hidden! 3. Wait for that company to file suit.[^3] 4. Win or lose the case. @@ -116,6 +116,15 @@ If we _lose_ both cases: Microsoft does not have the legal high ground. We have Either way, it's an absolute win for free software. Taking down Copilot protects copyleft from enabling proprietary derivatives (and by extension, protects software freedom). But if we accidentally win these two low-stakes "test" cases, we still gain something else: we can liberate huge swaths of proprietary software, starting with speech synthesizers. +
+ +Corrections +----------- + +It's come to my attention that Eloquence may or may not still belong to Nuance. Further research is needed. + +
+ [^1]: See {{}}{{}} (application/pdf) submitted by OpenAI to the USPTO{{}}