| 00:01:56 | | dm4v quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 00:02:11 | | dm4v joins |
| 00:02:13 | | dm4v is now authenticated as dm4v |
| 00:02:13 | | dm4v quits [Changing host] |
| 00:02:13 | | dm4v (dm4v) joins |
| 00:05:59 | | Arcorann (Arcorann) joins |
| 00:07:34 | | BlueMaxima joins |
| 00:16:46 | | flashmeow quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 00:19:10 | | flashmeow (flashmeow) joins |
| 00:42:57 | | tzt quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 01:03:52 | | dm4v quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 01:07:45 | | dm4v joins |
| 01:07:47 | | dm4v is now authenticated as dm4v |
| 01:07:47 | | dm4v quits [Changing host] |
| 01:07:47 | | dm4v (dm4v) joins |
| 02:42:56 | | Ajay_m quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 02:44:44 | | Ajay_m joins |
| 02:49:04 | | Ajay_m quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 02:57:54 | | TheTechRobo quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 03:15:28 | | tzt joins |
| 03:37:22 | | qw3rty__ joins |
| 03:41:12 | | qw3rty_ quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 03:52:19 | | Ajay_m joins |
| 03:56:32 | | wizards_ joins |
| 03:59:48 | | wizards quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 04:33:43 | | Ajay_m quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 04:53:58 | | fuzzy8021 quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 04:57:35 | | DogsRNice_ quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 05:13:22 | | Larsenv (Larsenv) joins |
| 05:13:29 | | fuzzy8021 (fuzzy8021) joins |
| 05:16:54 | | Ajay_m joins |
| 05:46:06 | | atphoenix_ is now known as atphoenix |
| 05:47:07 | | sec^nd quits [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] |
| 05:59:19 | | sec^nd (second) joins |
| 06:37:32 | | Ajay_m quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 06:52:13 | | Ajay_m joins |
| 08:02:54 | | Ajay_m quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 08:23:00 | | spirit joins |
| 08:44:47 | | Ajay_m joins |
| 08:49:21 | | BlueMaxima quits [Client Quit] |
| 10:08:42 | | Terbium quits [Quit: http://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.] |
| 10:09:08 | | Terbium joins |
| 10:34:03 | | HP_Archivist quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 10:35:00 | | Matthww8 quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 10:35:22 | | Matthww8 joins |
| 12:14:42 | | grawity quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 14:51:52 | | spirit quits [Client Quit] |
| 15:02:17 | | TheTechRobo joins |
| 15:03:14 | | TheTechRobo quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 15:06:42 | | Arcorann quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 15:40:43 | | Iki1 quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 15:48:18 | | dm4v quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 15:48:31 | | dm4v joins |
| 15:48:33 | | dm4v is now authenticated as dm4v |
| 15:48:33 | | dm4v quits [Changing host] |
| 15:48:33 | | dm4v (dm4v) joins |
| 16:38:13 | | c00k13 quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 16:43:58 | | c00k13 joins |
| 16:51:42 | | spirit joins |
| 17:55:32 | | HP_Archivist (HP_Archivist) joins |
| 19:11:17 | | AlsoHP_Archivist joins |
| 19:15:00 | | HP_Archivist quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 19:15:52 | | AlsoHP_Archivist quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 19:16:42 | | AlsoHP_Archivist joins |
| 19:27:02 | | teej (teej) joins |
| 19:52:23 | | spirit quits [Client Quit] |
| 19:53:54 | <teej> | Hello JAA. If you're available, what are your thoughts about the GitHub Copilot experiment and its use of copyleft source code? |
| 20:09:23 | <teej> | References: |
| 20:09:23 | <teej> | https://github.blog/2021-06-29-introducing-github-copilot-ai-pair-programmer/ |
| 20:09:23 | <teej> | https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation |
| 20:10:01 | <teej> | Discussions: |
| 20:10:01 | <teej> | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27724042 |
| 20:10:01 | <teej> | https://drewdevault.com/2021/07/04/Is-GitHub-a-derivative-work.html |
| 20:10:01 | <teej> | https://zephyrtronium.github.io/articles/copilot.html |
| 20:11:14 | <teej> | Anyone can comment on this, not only JAA. |
| 20:14:49 | <teej> | There's also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27676266. That one is pretty long. |
| 20:20:52 | | aleph quits [Read error: Connection reset by peer] |
| 20:20:53 | | aleph joins |
| 20:25:13 | <teej> | Actually... |
| 20:25:38 | <teej> | This is very relevant to archiving... because a lot of people on GitHub will jump ship. |
| 20:28:57 | <teej> | Example: https://twitter.com/nixcraft/status/1411438221918150664 |
| 20:37:40 | <teej> | Also watch out for new forks of Audacity. |
| 20:54:17 | | AlsoHP_Archivist quits [Ping timeout: 258 seconds] |
| 20:55:04 | | AlsoHP_Archivist joins |
| 20:56:33 | <Ryz> | https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/07/gamers-are-better-scientists-catching-fraud/619324/ |
| 20:56:40 | | AlsoHP_Archivist quits [Client Quit] |
| 20:56:41 | <Ryz> | "Why Scientists are Worse Than Gamers" - madeup clickbait title |
| 20:56:59 | <teej> | Thanks Ryz. I'll check it out. |
| 21:12:34 | <teej> | Ryz: That's interesting. I think the comparison between cheating in games and fabricating scientific data is somewhat unjustified. There are just way too many research papers being published. |
| 21:15:06 | <Ryz> | In the article, there have been proposed tools that would automatically or help people find more fraudulent pieces, but because money is often involved, people don't want to dive into that and risk having their own stuff be checked s: |
| 21:18:32 | <teej> | Ryz: I'm not convinced that tools, at least with the current state of technology, can accurately detect fabricated data from scientific research papers, let alone novel research. |
| 21:22:22 | <Ryz> | It would have to start somewhere, even if it's small, since if what the article says is true, the people who are supposed to check the research and findings aren't doing their job properly either s: |
| 21:23:17 | <@JAA> | > Hosts code on GitHub, a commercial platform with terms that grant the company a licence to do countless things with the code. |
| 21:23:21 | <@JAA> | > GitHub uses it. |
| 21:23:22 | <teej> | Hmm, scientific publishers don't make it easy to access paid content. |
| 21:23:24 | <@JAA> | surprised_pikachu.png |
| 21:25:30 | <Jake> | teej: interesting legal perspective here: https://decoded.legal/blog/2021/06/github-copilot-initial-thoughts-from-an-english-law-perspective |
| 21:25:31 | <teej> | JAA: Lol. It's not that simple. A lot of people can take code repositories from other places and easily upload it onto GitHub. |
| 21:26:33 | <Jake> | I imagine when uploading to Github you say it's your code, legally, anyways. |
| 21:26:38 | <@JAA> | Sure, but then the code would be released under a licence that allows for such redistribution (assuming there's nothing illegal going on). |
| 21:29:22 | <@JAA> | Jake: GitHub's terms account for that. 'If you're posting anything you did not create yourself or do not own the rights to, you agree that you are responsible for any Content you post; that you will only submit Content that you have the right to post; and that you will fully comply with any third party licenses relating to Content you post.' |
| 21:29:34 | <Jake> | yup. |
| 21:30:51 | <teej> | Jake: This is a long article. It may take me a little to read through it. |
| 21:40:40 | <teej> | JAA: The article that Jake linked makes an interesting point about whether the GitHub Copilot's code is an act of "copying". GitHub themselves state "We found that about 0.1% of the time, the suggestion may contain some snippets that are verbatim from the training set." |
| 21:41:24 | <@JAA> | Well, yeah, I guess there are two completely distinct issues here: is it fine for GitHub to use the published code like that, and what happens when someone actually uses the resulting code? |
| 21:42:04 | <@JAA> | I'd say that the answer to the former is a clear yes given the open-source licences and GitHub's terms. |
| 21:42:08 | <@JAA> | The latter is ... complicated. |
| 21:43:05 | | lorwp quits [Quit: ZNC - https://znc.in] |
| 21:43:57 | | lorwp (lorwp) joins |
| 21:45:34 | | t3chler quits [Quit: https://quassel-irc.org - Chat comfortably. Anywhere.] |
| 21:46:02 | <thuban> | another issue, as mentioned briefly in another hn thread (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287) is the incorporation of (presumably irremovable) pii |
| 21:47:31 | <@JAA> | Yeah, that's a good point. |
| 21:48:02 | <@JAA> | Or secrets like API keys. |
| 21:48:15 | | t3chler joins |
| 21:49:56 | <teej> | I also don't think GitHub's use copyleft code to train AI/ML algorithms is a concern. I think that the product that Microsoft/GitHub creates that allows them to use parts of copyleft code generated by an algorithm in their own private codebase (internal Microsoft/GitHub code) is controversial, as it incentives a loophole around copyleft licenses. |
| 21:51:12 | <teej> | That builds on what is said on Drew DeVault's blog post (https://drewdevault.com/2021/07/04/Is-GitHub-a-derivative-work.html). |
| 21:51:50 | <thuban> | ^^ that's more of a practical problem for users than a legal problem for github |
| 21:54:55 | <teej> | JAA: I remember seeing a Twitter post showing GitHub Copilot autocompleting an SSH private key, but the user commented that it was just a joke. |
| 21:58:11 | <@JAA> | Heh |
| 21:59:18 | <@JAA> | Well, I didn't have to look far: https://twitter.com/pkell7/status/1411058236321681414 |
| 22:01:49 | <teej> | JAA: Isn't that probably because someone accidentally committed secrets? |
| 22:01:58 | <@JAA> | Sure, so? |
| 22:02:36 | <teej> | Oh, I was just making sure. I wasn't making a point. |
| 22:02:57 | <@JAA> | Right |
| 22:03:22 | <@JAA> | Yeah, someone (or multiple people) committed code like that, the AI was trained with it, and now it suggests it to other people. |
| 22:03:25 | <@JAA> | Free API keys. :-) |
| 22:03:34 | <teej> | Lol. |
| 22:04:25 | <@JAA> | Some people are saying that any keys or email addresses appearing in code returned by Copilot are generated, but I definitely wouldn't trust that. lol |
| 22:05:26 | <teej> | It's generated (obviously?) by an algorithm that took it from actual code and copied it. |
| 22:06:26 | <@hook54321> | does it use code from private repos too? |
| 22:07:07 | <@JAA> | I don't think so. |
| 22:07:18 | <teej> | hook54321: I would assume not, unless Microsoft really wants to get sued. |
| 22:07:30 | <thuban> | JAA: it definitely generates real github and twitter links (https://twitter.com/kylpeacock/status/1410749018183933952#m), so i'm pretty sure it can handle email addresses :) |
| 22:08:09 | <@hook54321> | part of the problem would be solved by people not committing private API keys |
| 22:08:13 | <@JAA> | I'm wondering whether they filtered the training set for code licences. There's a whole bunch of non-open-source code in public repos on GitHub because people aren't adding a LICENSE file. |
| 22:08:48 | <@hook54321> | that's my biggest concern i think |
| 22:09:34 | <@hook54321> | and attribution, etc. |
| 22:09:47 | <@JAA> | Yeah |
| 22:12:16 | <teej> | I still don't know if Copilot will reproduce binary data. |
| 22:12:18 | <@JAA> | thuban: To clarify, I mean 'I wouldn't trust it to work 100 % of the time'. |
| 22:12:29 | <@hook54321> | also, if it automatically adds an attribution of their github username, i wonder how it'll go if someone changes it. |
| 22:13:21 | <teej> | Binary data encoded in non-binary form. |
| 22:13:56 | <@JAA> | I mean, it's not like they can do that. The code is synthesised, not copied from samples. Most likely, they have no way to even tell which code samples influenced a particular piece of generated code. |
| 22:15:13 | <teej> | I can envision a future license that will prohibits Microsoft from doing this AI/ML code generation. |
| 22:16:12 | <teej> | JAA: Not copied? GitHub states "We found that about 0.1% of the time, the suggestion may contain some snippets that are verbatim from the training set." |
| 22:16:37 | <@JAA> | Yeah, so 99.9 % of the time, it isn't copied. |
| 22:16:52 | <teej> | That's misleading. |
| 22:17:00 | | wickedplayer494 quits [Ping timeout: 250 seconds] |
| 22:17:20 | <@JAA> | Yeah, sort of, but you know what I mean. |
| 22:17:23 | <teej> | It could be 1000 times... |
| 22:17:37 | <@JAA> | Most of the code generated by it is not simply a copy of an input sample. |
| 22:17:46 | <@hook54321> | teej: afaik, github can kinda legally use the code for this feature, but people can't use the feature without violating some license. so it's already practically not allowed. |
| 22:17:46 | | wickedplayer494 joins |
| 22:18:00 | <@JAA> | And therefore attribution to an input sample is very difficult to impossible. |
| 22:18:05 | <teej> | Jake: The Quake source code output proves my point. |
| 22:18:20 | <@JAA> | hook54321: Try proving that someone used it though. :-/ |
| 22:19:01 | <@hook54321> | i don't think i hate the idea itself, but it's not practical. |
| 22:19:06 | <@hook54321> | JAA: true |
| 22:19:49 | <@hook54321> | IF it could attribute people, it could be fine, i guess? |
| 22:20:18 | <teej> | hook54321: And it's legal if they tweaked the algorithm to produce copyleft code more than 0.1% of the time too? |
| 22:21:00 | <teej> | hook54321: Tweaked and used for themselves.* |
| 22:21:21 | <teej> | To bypass GPL restrictions. |
| 22:21:48 | <@JAA> | It would also have to prevent the combination of samples with incompatible licences. |
| 22:21:48 | <@hook54321> | not sure what you mean bypass |
| 22:21:52 | <@hook54321> | yeah |
| 22:22:28 | <@hook54321> | i guess they could train separate APIs for different licenses |
| 22:23:13 | <@hook54321> | excluding any repos without a license |
| 22:23:27 | <@hook54321> | *AIs |
| 22:26:25 | | Mateon1 quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 22:26:29 | | Mateon1 joins |
| 22:27:01 | <teej> | hook54321: What I mean to say is that I can imagine a large corporation (Microsoft) abusing an AI/ML algorithm trained on a lot of copyleft code to generate verbatim copies of parts of copyleft code to be used in private repositories without having to release the private source code by using the algorithm as an excuse. |
| 22:28:28 | <teej> | Microsoft is also trying to add a lot of Linux-like features into Windows, for example. |
| 22:32:32 | | wickedplayer494 is now authenticated as wickedplayer494 |
| 22:33:26 | | superkuh quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 22:33:27 | <teej> | hook54321: Yes, I can imagine Microsoft would train the AI/ML algorithm on their own Windows codebases separately. Otherwise, users can potentially leak parts of Windows source code. |
| 22:33:42 | | superkuh joins |
| 22:34:54 | <teej> | To be quite honest, I'm not exactly sure why Visual Studio Code got so popular so quickly. |
| 22:36:05 | <teej> | Is it because of the plugins? |
| 22:36:46 | <teej> | Does anyone here personally use Visual Studio Code? |
| 22:37:29 | <Jake> | I've used VSCode in the past for larger projects, I use gedit for a majority of my 'smaller' projects. |
| 22:38:36 | <teej> | Jake: Did you install plugins? |
| 22:39:07 | <Jake> | I think I installed one for better GitHub integration, and maybe a few for language highlighting, but nothing else |
| 22:42:12 | <@JAA> | Pff... butterflies. |
| 22:44:22 | <teej> | Oh, okay. |
| 22:45:42 | <teej> | I would recommend VSCodium as an alternative if using VS Code is necessary. |
| 22:48:51 | <teej> | JAA: What does "butterflies" refer to? |
| 22:49:04 | <@JAA> | https://xkcd.com/378/ |
| 22:50:07 | <teej> | LOL! |
| 22:50:37 | <teej> | That made me laugh. |
| 23:11:22 | | BlueMaxima joins |
| 23:21:29 | | Mateon1 quits [Remote host closed the connection] |
| 23:21:46 | | Mateon1 joins |