<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>hutzlibu</author><text>&amp;quot;The problem is not that Copilot produces code that is &amp;quot;inspired&amp;quot; by GPL code, it&amp;#x27;s that it spits out GPL code verbatim.&amp;quot;&lt;p&gt;But only snippets as far as I can tell.&lt;p&gt;This is the codeexample linked from the author:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;web.archive.org&amp;#x2F;web&amp;#x2F;20221017081115&amp;#x2F;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nitter.net&amp;#x2F;docsparse&amp;#x2F;status&amp;#x2F;1581461734665367554&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;web.archive.org&amp;#x2F;web&amp;#x2F;20221017081115&amp;#x2F;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;nitter.ne...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;It is still not trivial code, but are there really lot&amp;#x27;s of different ways on how to transpose matrixes?&lt;p&gt;(Also the input was &amp;quot;sparse matrix transpose, cs_&amp;quot;, so his naming convention especially included. So it is questionable if a user would get his code in this shape with a normal prompt)&lt;p&gt;And just slightly changing the code seems trivial, at what point will it be acceptable?&lt;p&gt;I just don&amp;#x27;t think spending much energy there is really beneficial for anyone.&lt;p&gt;I rather see the potential benefits of AI for open source. I haven&amp;#x27;t used Copilot, but ChatGPT4 is really helpful generating small chunks of code for me, enabling me to aim higher in my goals. So what&amp;#x27;s the big harm, if also some proprietary black box gets improved, when also all the open source devs can produce with greater efficency?</text><parent_chain><item><author>spuz</author><text>The problem is not that Copilot produces code that is &amp;quot;inspired&amp;quot; by GPL code, it&amp;#x27;s that it spits out GPL code verbatim.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; This can lead to some copylefted code being included in proprietary or simply not copylefted projects. And this is a violation of both the license terms and the intellectual proprety of the authors of the original code.&lt;p&gt;If the author was a human, this would be a clear violation of the licence. The AI case is no different as far as I can tell.&lt;p&gt;Edit: I&amp;#x27;m definitely no expert on copyright law for code but my personal rule is don&amp;#x27;t include someone&amp;#x27;s copyrighted code if it can by unambiguously identified as their original work. For very small lines of code, it would be hard to identify any single original author. When it comes to whole functions it gets easier to say &amp;quot;actually this came from this GPL licensed project&amp;quot;. Since Copilot can produce whole functions verbatim, this is the basis on which I state that it &amp;quot;would be a clear violation&amp;quot; of the licence. If Copilot chooses to be less concerned about violating the law than I am then that&amp;#x27;s a problem. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m overly cautious and the GPL is more lenient than this in reality.</text></item><item><author>vadiml</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m really baffled by all this discussion on copyrights in the age of AI. The Copilot does not
&amp;#x27;steal&amp;#x27; or and reproduce our code - it simply LEARNS from it as a human coder would learn from it. IMHO desire to prevent learning from your open source code seems kind of irrational and antithetical to open source ideas.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Please don’t upload my code on GitHub</title><url>https://nogithub.codeberg.page/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>ithkuil</author><text>Could a human also accidentally spit out the exact code while having it just learned and not memorized in good faith?&lt;p&gt;I guess the likelihood decreases as the code length increases but the likelihood also increases the more constraints on parameters such as code style, code uniformity etc you pose.</text><parent_chain><item><author>spuz</author><text>The problem is not that Copilot produces code that is &amp;quot;inspired&amp;quot; by GPL code, it&amp;#x27;s that it spits out GPL code verbatim.&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; This can lead to some copylefted code being included in proprietary or simply not copylefted projects. And this is a violation of both the license terms and the intellectual proprety of the authors of the original code.&lt;p&gt;If the author was a human, this would be a clear violation of the licence. The AI case is no different as far as I can tell.&lt;p&gt;Edit: I&amp;#x27;m definitely no expert on copyright law for code but my personal rule is don&amp;#x27;t include someone&amp;#x27;s copyrighted code if it can by unambiguously identified as their original work. For very small lines of code, it would be hard to identify any single original author. When it comes to whole functions it gets easier to say &amp;quot;actually this came from this GPL licensed project&amp;quot;. Since Copilot can produce whole functions verbatim, this is the basis on which I state that it &amp;quot;would be a clear violation&amp;quot; of the licence. If Copilot chooses to be less concerned about violating the law than I am then that&amp;#x27;s a problem. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m overly cautious and the GPL is more lenient than this in reality.</text></item><item><author>vadiml</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m really baffled by all this discussion on copyrights in the age of AI. The Copilot does not
&amp;#x27;steal&amp;#x27; or and reproduce our code - it simply LEARNS from it as a human coder would learn from it. IMHO desire to prevent learning from your open source code seems kind of irrational and antithetical to open source ideas.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Please don’t upload my code on GitHub</title><url>https://nogithub.codeberg.page/</url></story>