function isPrime(n: number): boolean {
for (let i = 2; i < n; i++) {
if (n % i === 0) {
return false;
}
}
return n > 1;
}
function isEven(n: number): boolean {
return n % 2 === 0;
}
I think they intentionally picked (literal) textbook examples because they're short and easy for non-experts to grasp and have some understanding of. But I don't think we've seen any of the code from the respective J. Doe's yet, and I would assume we would in the trial (possibly in addition to more cases).
So it isn't too hard to prove the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...
"In computer programs, concerns for efficiency may limit the possible ways to achieve a particular function, making a particular expression necessary to achieving the idea. In this case, the expression is not protected by copyright."
"Finally, material that exists in the public domain can not be copyrighted and is also removed from the analysis."
That code is specifically optimized for efficiency and there were similar approaches floating (get it?) around in the 1980s.
On the other hand, Microsoft may only need to show "Hey, we got this code from FooBar under this license and this license and ..."
> Due to the nature of Codex, Copilot, and AI in general, Plaintiffs cannot be certain these examples would produce the same results if attempted following additional trainings of Codex and/or Copilot.
The offending solution from the AI included extra lines that are reasonably understood to come straight from Eloquent JavaScript:
console.log(isEven(50));
// → true
console.log(isEven(75));
// → false
console.log(isEven(‐1));
// → ??AI/ML will change every field just as the Internet and smartphones did. It doesn't show any indication of peaking, either.
If the US chooses the wrong path here, we'll only tie our hands behind our backs. Other countries won't be so foolish.
We should be able to train on any media a child could see, hear, or read.
Chill dude, all they have to do is include the licenses on their generated code.
If anything, this is going to generate even more progress. The copilot team would have to create some kind of feature that would connect the generated output the the relevant training data. That'd be pretty incredible to see in the field of AI/ML in general.
Copilot losing the lawsuit is evidence it’s a case of overfitting, not true ML.
I think we should just relax copyright, it's dying anyway. Language models allow people to borrow skills learned from other people, and solve tasks. That's huge. Like Matrix, loading up a new skill at the press of a button. Can we give up such a huge advantage in order to protect copyright?
I think the notion of copyright has been under attack already for 2 decades by the internet, search engine and social networks. They all work against it, and AI does it even more. It just encapsulates the whole culture in a box, mixing everything up, all copyrights melting away, everything one prompt away. This could be a new medium of propagation for ideas. No longer limited to human brains and books, they can now propagate through language models more efficiently.
Otherwise they would create the ultimate "copyright laundry machine".[1]
I'm very sure at least Hollywood and the big music labels would not like that… ;-)
" Showing 1 - 20 of 66 files found (in 76 milliseconds)"
So, if this lawsuit succeeds in some way shape or form, does the author have a case against the 66 people that reproduced these lines in their own repository?
IIRC, that is wrong. What you are describing is trademarks, not copyright.