zlacker

>>davidg+(OP)
I’ve noticed that people tend to disapprove of AI trained on their profession’s data, but are usually indifferent or positive about other applications of AI.

For example, I know artists who are vehemently against DALL-E, Stable Diffusion, etc. and regard it as stealing, but they view Copilot and GPT-3 as merely useful tools. I also know software devs who are extremely excited about AI art and GPT-3 but are outraged by Copilot.

For myself, I am skeptical of intellectual property in the first place. I say go for it.

>>kweing+v6
I, with my software developer hat, am not excited by AI. Not a bit, honestly. Esp. about these big models trained on huge amount of data, without any consent.

Let me be perfectly clear. I'm all for the tech. The capabilities are nice. The thing I'm strongly against is training these models on any data without any consent.

GPT-3 is OK, training it with public stuff regardless of its license is not.

Copilot is OK, training on with GPL/LGPL licensed code without consent is not.

DALL-E/MidJourney/Stable Diffusion is OK. Training it with non public domain or CC0 images is not.

"We're doing something amazing, hence we need no permission" is ugly to put it very lightly.

I've left GitHub because of CoPilot. Will leave any photo hosting platform if they hint any similar thing with my photography, period.

>>bayind+Fd
> training on with GPL/LGPL licensed code without consent is not

That’s actually fine (kind of the idea of specifying a license). What is not fine is using that code in non-GPL licensed code.

>>Aeolun+Yw
> That’s actually fine...

Actually yes. I'm not against the tech. I'm against using my code without consent for a tool which allows to breach the license I put my code under.

IOW, if Copilot understood code licenses and prevented intermixing incompatibly licensed code while emitting results for my repository, I might have slightly different stance on the issue.