Suppose we add a button to a visual studio plugin called 'Copy me a function' and when you click it, it 100% grabs some random code from github and plops it as-is into your code base.
I don't have to argue the ethics of if the button is 'thinking for itself'
> Suppose we add a button to a visual studio plugin called 'Copy me a function' and when you click it, it 100% grabs some random code from github and plops it as-is into your code base.
Personally, that's exactly how I see co-pilot. To my mind, it's a tool that sits in the same category as p2p platforms, copying machines or video recorders. They are just tools.
How, for what purposes and by whom they are leveraged makes all the difference here.
P2P platforms and those who violate copyright are routinely shut down (or attempt to be shut down) in the US. If co-pilot sits in that same space, it seems the books been written already... we know how it ends.
... as opposed to AI. At the heart of the matter lurks a debate whether AI is an independent phenomenon which behaves in its own right, or a just a tool that's created and wielded by humans against a backdrop of clear incentives and motivations.
The argument isn't about whether or not the law deals in a absolutes - it's a basic principle that law is tested in courts through interpretation - the argument is that co-pilot can be perceived as merely a means to an end and that GitHub / Microsoft have created a massive mountain of liabilities for themselves.