zlacker

>>zacwes+(OP)
Sometimes I have to wonder about the hypocrisy you can see on HN threads. When its software development, many here seem to understand the merits of a similar lawsuit against Copilot[1], but as soon as its a different group such as artists, then it's "no, that's not how a NN works" or "the NN model works just the same way as a human would understand art and style."

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34274326

>>supriy+c3
I believe Copilot was giving exact copies of large parts open source projects, without the license. Are image generators giving exact (or very similar) copies of existing works?

I feel like this is the main distinction.

>>TheMid+w4
Not large parts of open source projects. It was one function that was pretty well known and replicated. The author prompted with a part of the code, and the model finished the rest including the original comments.

There are two issues here

- the model needs to be carefully prompted (goaded) into copyright violation, so it is instigated to do it by excessive quoting from the original

- the replicated codes are usually boilerplate, common approaches or "famous" examples from books; in other words they are examples that appear in multiple places in the training set as opposed to just once

Do generic codes, boilerplate and API calls deserve protection? Maybe the famous examples do, but not every replicated code does.