For very small values of often.

https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitatio...

You're citing a study done by Github on their own product, on something that has generated lots of backlash over the last week. I would take it seriously if it was an independant study, but right now it's hard to believe it.

Github's study predates any negative press, so that would not have be the reason for them to manipulate the study. And the examples that are making the rounds combine two aspects a) prompt-engineering b) famous code samples. That's hardly representative of normal use.

So while independent testing would be welcome I don't consider backlash observational evidence. What we're seeing is in line with prior experience with GPT.

> Github's study predates any negative press, so that would not have be the reason for them to manipulate the study.

I seriously doubt that no one raised the concerns that are raised today during the development of Copilot.

> And the examples that are making the rounds combine two aspects a) prompt-engineering b) famous code samples. That's hardly representative of normal use.

That's true, however the way they advertise Copilot is to prompt it with comments, which might push it to regurgitate code more often.

>I seriously doubt that no one raised the concerns that are raised today during the development of Copilot.

I would be shocked if they did. The common wisdom in the ML community is that training data is fair use. GPT has been operating for 2-3 years now with no legal issues, and this is just a different fine tune of GPT3.

Which means that if every one of us was using it, many of us would be using copyrighted code by the end of a single day.

Yes. That part was implicit in my post. I'm trying to follow the logic a bit further to see where it goes.