zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
Ok. So instead of whining about it on Twitter sue GitHub. No matter what you think of Copilot, establishing some case law on AI-generated code will be beneficial to everyone.

>>ralph8+g7
It goes beyond code. Also photos, art, text, etc. Be careful what you wish for. Whether you like it or not, with a stroke of a pen Congress or the Supreme Court in the US could probably wipe out the legal use of a huge amount of the training data used for ML.

>>ghaff+Q7
Good! Large corporations shouldn’t be able to profit off of other people’s data without consent or compensation.

>>Jevon2+t9
Great! I assume you believe all search engines should be illegal then?

>>drstew+Wa
Accessing a computer system without permission is illegal. Search engines operate under the assumption that they have permission to access any public available server unless explicitly forbidden.

If a company or person assume they got copyright permission to any work public accessible then they will quickly find out that such assumption is wrong, and that they require explicit permission.

>>belorn+Gc
>Search engines operate under the assumption that they have permission to access any public available server unless explicitly forbidden.

And why should opt-out be a reasonable norm? To be clear, the internet (among many other things) breaks down if every exchange of information is opt-in. Sharing of photographs taken in public places is another example. But the internet basically functions because people share information on an opt-out basis (that may or may not even be respected).