Wasn't this the subject of millions of dollars of litigation between Oracle and Google?
> Google’s copying of so-called application programming interfaces from Oracle’s Java SE was an example of fair use, the court held (…).
Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2021/04/05/tech/google-oracle-suprem...
That was a very different case. That case was about whether an API/interface was considered copyrightable. The outcome of the case was that the implementation was obviously copyrightable however the interface was not. The background being google creating their own custom implementation of the JVM.
If the snippets merely had attribution, they'd be both legal and acceptable to most open source authors.
The code is not transformative because the quoted code is not used for some other purpose like as part of an article discussing whatever the code does, it is used to do exactly it's original job.
If you wrote a book by quoting choice paragraphs from other books, without crediting any of them, presenting the new book as simply your pile of deep insights, that is not transformative, even though your book is not the same as any single of the source books. It's also not fair use, even though all the quoted bits are short, both because of the usage and the lack of accreditation.
We could have something like copilot just fine if done above board, but as it is right now github are simply outlaw and with no excuse at all.
Most of the time copilot is giving you one-line completions that are heavily adapted to the surrounding code. It’s not “writing a book by quoting choice paragraphs from other books”. It’s fancy autocomplete.
You can direct copilot to give you anything you ask it for. If you ask it for an entire function, and you don’t give it any context, then you are more likely to get a snippet from inside its memory. But even when this happens you are unlikely to keep the entire snippet unmodified because the chance that it is what you were looking for is low.
Does that matter? It's not the end users who are being accused of copyright violation, it's the tool itself.
If the argument is that copilot is infringing because it merely displays an allegedly copyrighted snippet for a few moments, even if the user does not accept the completion, or accepts it but then deletes it, then that is a completely different argument because there is very little identifiable damage to the authors, which bolsters an argument of fair use.
If I steal your television, it doesn't matter how much I get for it at the pawn shop.
> It possesses and reproduces copyrighted code without it's attribution.
To be clear - attribution does not fix GPL license violation.
Emphasis mine.
This is different from asking Google and getting code directly from Google without the license - that is, without any indication that this code was taken from somewhere that has a license on all parts of it, not just the parts that Google didn't bother to show you.
That's not how this works.
If I give you a blob of uniformly random bits and then give you a passphrase you can use with a tool to turn that into a Hollywood movie, and you do so, and then you delete it, that isn't not copyright infringement.
It is.
There is a concept in copyright law of derivative work which means simply editing Harry Potter isn’t enough to publish it without paying for the rights to do so. Even highly transformative fanficfion can run into this issue when much of the original work’s characters and setting remain.
Disney gets away with this stuff by copying public domain works, copilot and it’s users don’t have that defense.
But works of non-fictional literature (of which source code is an example) have to work harder to justify their copyright.
Many of the snippets of code generated by copilot contain zero creative expression. They are just mechanical implementations of an algorithm.
You mentioned setting and plot. The source code equivalent is architecture. Copilot generated snippets are usually too short and too algorithmic to have their own architecture.
What makes a derivative work derivative is that it copies creative expressions from the parent work. If you edit them out, then it’s not a derivative work anymore.
The use is only helping developing the algorithm by adding more value to the product in improving extracting the creative expression.
Copilot is a loose/loose game for developers, regardless on which end they are.
Which is why even very short snippets of code have been an issue.
Keyword being "Most of the time"
It's not unlike copying code from stack overflow and swapping the identifiers around.
Isn't this exactly what you'd expect an AI coder to do?
What is the specific difference?
In that order likely a violation, but it depends on the concrete case, always.
I take care to attempt to not duplicate code; it's why don't use copilot.
It's certainly possible. Back when Phoenix reverse-engineered the IBM BIOS using published sources with a restrictive license, they did it by having one team read the sources and write a very detailed specification of everything that happens there, and then another team used that spec to write new code from scratch. They did it that way because if the first team were to write the code themselves, it is quite likely that the result would be legally considered derived work.
They also usually have a Luddite axe to grind.
If they succeed in getting CoPilot outlawed (obviously they won’t), then I will rent $50 worth of GPU time and train my own, like some kind of cyberpunk outlaw.
But GPL just adds that the source be made available to any recipient of code you used. That's pretty easy to arrange because even a link satisfies it.
If copilot can be made to spit out attribution, then it can spit out links at the same time.
Another idea is copilot could be changed to only include code where the authors opted in to an aggregate credit where your new program only has to declare that it used copilot and a link to copilot's training set along with your programs source, without trying to itemize each bit of output.
There could also be other versions of copilot that includes other code under other terms, like pure MIT or PD code where the original author already explicitly granted usage with no terms, or paid commercial code where github paid the authors to be able to include code to be used in this way and maybe with terms where the end user does not have to re-share.
These are not quotations from other people's code but something about the deep structures of language and programming language semantics. However, I suspect if you knew enough of a snippet from other source you could coax Co-pilot to suggest code learned from that source, but it would likely be washed over by other code in the corpus where it coincided with meanings.
The main issue is that while you can use copilot to create "new"/transformative code, it's also trivial to get it to pump out licensed works in a form where you could claim "I didn't know it was taken from x project with y license because the tool made it for me".
I personally have no problem with copilot in concept however to do it (or any other AI model based text/graphics tool) without infringing on people's copyrights is practically an unsolved problem (excluding just per-licensing the training data ahead of time).
Software is unique in that there is a cultural trend to share source code, so that makes it easy to compile into "free" datasets.
I wouldn't say it's an unsolved problem, it's just that there are no incentives to compile or pay for datasets when Microsoft already has petabyes of code to train on. If anything, I expect Microsoft to sell datasets based on GitHub repositories if Copilot-like models survive this lawsuit and are conmoditized.
I really think we are entering some interesting territory that will likely be an interesting can of worms.
So, you’re saying I can’t work in this industry? That seems a bit harsh.
If you're going to be spitting copyrighted code out in violation of any licenses it might be made available under… yes, you can't. Most employers would not appreciate that behaviour. But I doubt you actually do this, even though you're capable of it. You reason about your code; you're not just being a predictive text engine.
I don't concede the equivalence.
Hmm..
> The printing press is not transformative because the printed text is not used for some other purpose, it is used to do exactly it's original job.
See the error in your logic? The potentially transformative part is not the code itself. It's the impact to the process of creating the code.
The only things covered by copyright are creative choices. In software, as established by Whelan v. Jaslow [0] this is the structure, sequence and organization [1].
The district court ruling in the Whelan case drew on the established doctrine that even when the component parts of a work cannot be copyrightable, the structure and organization of a work may be. The court also drew support from the 1985 SAS Inst. Inc. v. S&H Computer Sys. Inc. in which it had been found that copyright protected organizational and structural details, not just specific lines of code. Structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in this case was defined as "the manner in which the program operates, controls and regulates the computer in receiving, assembling, calculating, retaining, correlating, and producing useful information." SSO refers to non-literal elements of computer programs that include "data input formats, file structures, design, organization and flow of the code, screen outputs or user interfaces, and the flow and sequencing of the screens."
However:
The Whelan decision initiated a period of excessively tight protection, suppressing innovation, since almost everything other than the broad purpose of a software work would be protected. The only exception was where the functionality could only be achieved in a very small number of ways. In these cases there could be no protection due to the merger doctrine, which applies when the expression and the idea are inextricably merged. Later the same year, in Broderbund v. Unison the court cited Whelan when finding that the overall structure, sequencing, and arrangement of screens, or the "total concept and feel", could be protected by copyright.
For a brief overview of the merger doctrine:
https://www.lucysnyder.com/index.php/copyright-law-merger-do...
So this excessively tight protection was rectified in CAI Inc v Altai [2], which established the legal doctrine of Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison [3] which says "As we have already noted, a computer program's ultimate function or purpose is the composite result of interacting subroutines. Since each Subroutine is itself a program, and thus, may be said to have its own 'idea,' Whelan's general formulation that a program's overall Purpose equates with the program's idea is descriptively inadequate."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whelan_v._Jaslow
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Associates_Internatio....
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction-Filtration-Compari...
This is quite literally how most of the Old and New Testaments came into existence. The authors of Matthew and Luke certainly didn't bother mentioning that they copied a bunch of stuff from Mark and whatever the Q source is (my bet is on either the Gospel of Thomas or some source thereof). Nor did the authors of Leviticus and such mention how they ripped large swaths of what's now known as Mosaic Law straight from Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi. These works are nonetheless considered pretty transformative.
That happened a few (thousand) weeks before copyright law was invented.
> The authors of Matthew and Luke certainly didn't bother mentioning that they copied a bunch of stuff from Mark and whatever the Q source is (my bet is on either the Gospel of Thomas or some source thereof). Nor did the authors of Leviticus and such mention how they ripped large swaths of what's now known as Mosaic Law straight from Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi.
The Q source (two-source hypothesis and four-source hypothesis both) is speculative, and there are several reasons to criticise the theory – such as lack of corroborating historical evidence that the Q source ever existed as a separate document.
That aside, Leviticus likely got its Hittite and Hammurabi influences via Mosaic Law, not (primarily) the other way around. (Legal systems influence other legal systems? Who knew‽) Merely saying the same thing isn't protected by modern copyright; facts are not copyrightable. (There is such a thing as "database rights", but that doesn't really come into play, here.)
> These works are nonetheless considered pretty transformative.
The merits of our current copyright regime aren't terribly relevant, here. If you want to change the law, change the law; don't try to have the existing law interpreted differently in select cases, especially if you're only doing that where it benefits already-powerful entities like Disney or Microsoft.
Who says it only benefits the already-powerful entities, or that it even benefits them at all in the long run? As evident from my other comments on this topic, my hope (and indeed expectation) is that they'll shoot themselves in the foot and be hoisted by their own copyright-infringing petard. It wasn't that long ago when copyright enforcement wasn't a thing, and that lack of enforcement didn't seem to stop people from creating all sorts of artistic and literary and musical works, great in quantity and quality alike. The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism.
Put simply: Copilot sets a precedent that I suspect will lead to the downfall of intellectual property law entirely. Probably not alone, but very likely one of several dominoes toppling toward that end result.
It's why several of Shakespeare's plays are missing, and others are only available in modified form. Since there was no exclusive right of performance, playwrights (and other similar creatives) had to keep their works close to their chest. Copyright does exist for a legitimate reason.
The biggest problems with copyright today, are:
• it's far, far, far too long; and
• corporate gatekeeping allows nigh-monopolistic corporations to take authors' copyrights from them, meaning copyright law doesn't protect authors at all!
(Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow discuss the latter in their book Chokepoint Capitalism, which I haven't read yet.)
> The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism.
I'd love it if it worked that way. I hope you're right – but I believe you're wrong. We can let them do this backtracking without letting copyright law tilt even further in their favour.
If copyright enforcement was a thing in Shakespeare's time, then a lot more of his plays would be missing today; there would've been far fewer "modified forms" even partially preserving works for which the original was lost, and far less opportunity to produce copies of unmodified forms.
> I'd love it if it worked that way. I hope you're right – but I believe you're wrong. We can let them do this backtracking without letting copyright law tilt even further in their favour.
I guess what I'm getting at is that this doesn't tilt the law in their favor. Either Copilot ignoring the licenses of source material is deemed legal (at which point people are free to launder proprietary code through ML models, destroying copyright law as applied to software) or it's not (at which point a multi-billion-dollar corporation loses a revenue source). Lose-lose for corporations, win-win for the rest of us.
No. His plays were preserved and published by his friends, after his death, so that they weren't lost. Because the curtains had closed, the players had moved on, and the loss of his plays was deemed worse than the loss of monopoly over them. Copyright was originally created to remove the incentives to keep things private and secret; if you have exclusive rights to copy it, and that's protected by law, you're able to release those copies without fear of somebody taking what you've made and pushing you out.
Look at the playwrights who didn't have friends like Shakespeare's. Where are their works, now?
That being said, the world has changed since the 1600s. Copyright (with reasonable term lengths!) was necessary before we had the 'net, but perhaps not so much now.
> Either Copilot ignoring the licenses of source material is deemed legal (at which point people are free to launder proprietary code through ML models, destroying copyright law as applied to software)
The law doesn't work logically like that. If Copilot is deemed lawful, there will be justification of that decision that doesn't allow us to launder proprietary code through ML models. Because copyright isn't about author's rights, and hasn't been since… the 60s? Since some time after the Universal Copyright Convention of 1952, anyway; I'm no historian.
You literally just said that there are plays of his which only survive in modified forms - i.e. ones which his friends were unable to preserve. Those modified forms are the ones that would disappear in this supposed alternate universe wherein Elizabethan England had copyright enforcement - because those modified forms would've been DCMA'd into nonexistence, and thus those plays would've been lost entirely.
> Look at the playwrights who didn't have friends like Shakespeare's. Where are their works, now?
Christopher Marlowe? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Christopher_Marlowe
Ben Jonson? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Ben_Jonson
Francis Beaumont? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Francis_Beaumont
John Fletcher? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:John_Fletcher
Thomas Middleton? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Thomas_Middleton
John Lyly? https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:John_Lyly
The answer to your question seems to be: they were preserved just fine and dandy.
> If Copilot is deemed lawful, there will be justification of that decision that doesn't allow us to launder proprietary code through ML models.
A license is a license. If it's okay to ignore the terms of the GPL, then it's okay to ignore the terms of any other software license, including Microsoft's EULAs. The law works on precedents, and Copilot's legality sets a precedent that threatens the very concept of software copyright.
Even if Microsoft somehow avoids being immediately eaten alive for lunch by the myriad competitors who'd love nothing more than for Windows to lose its copyright protections (they do have plenty of money to spend on lawyers, after all), their best case scenario of "we somehow managed to carve out an exception for our EULA being enforceable that somehow doesn't apply to other software licenses" would demonstrate rather plainly the fundamental inconsistency in intellectual property law, making it all the easier to justify abolishing it entirely.
> It's not transformative at all, nor quoted for study/discussion, and that's exactly what makes it a problem.
This model works in the same way as GPT-3. It's just predicting what the next most likely word will be given the previous words. It does this by creating a generalizaiton over the content that was used to train it. This generalization should be similar (or close to the same) to if it had a completely different set of training data.
In the same way that you could create 60,000 new training images comparable to the MNIST dataset, and get a model that works at an equivalent level, you could do the same with source code. It doesn't matter where the original data is from because the end result should be very similar when models reach higher levels of accuracy.
> but as it is right now github are simply outlaw and with no excuse at all.
This is an insane view on machine learning. When you read content, neural weights are adjusted in your brain to keep it as a memory. Is that copyright infringement too? Do you now owe Disney royalties because you stored their movie in your memories?
It's also an incredibly harmful view. Machine learning is dependent on data. Services like search, translation, recommendations, etc. are all dependent on training data. And, you're making the case, that since you don't like that it was trained on source code, it should all be illegal.
"Watching ditigal Walt Disney Movies is dependent on data."
It is illegal as the attribution is missing. Also copyright applies etc. see the lawsuit. Its less a technical thing, more a legal one.
I do not agree that it's a good idea to make using copyrighted data for training illegal. The people who are upset that GPL code was used for training should be happy that a large corporation believes that training on copyrighted works is fair use. It's a more democratized position.
> It is illegal as the attribution is missing. Also copyright applies etc. see the lawsuit. Its less a technical thing, more a legal one.
I think in reality, this is just a lawyer or group of lawyers who realized they had a case and a reactionary audience to possibly make them millions of dollars.
Services like search, translation, recommendations, etc. are all dependent on training data
There is an obvious benefit in being represented in search results and recommendations.
I don't understand what you're trying to state.
If you make fun of someone on national TV, someone doesn't like it either. It doesn't mean that it should be illegal.
I hope this makes more clear why I used this analogy.
They're building a class, but, beyond that, I'm not really confident there are any parties that feel like they've been harmed by what they're claiming is a violation. Microsoft didn't just copy repositories from GPL licensed code, but from other companies too. Why didn't these companies care?
It is a good counter point though, as Waymo has released datasets that can only be used under a license. While at the same time, GitHub did not initially use discretion for people who had agreed to their terms of service and were using their hosted repositories.
While I think the legal system might lean towards enforcing consent to use the data in certain circumstances, on the technical side, if it's really a generalization that is resulted from training, the initial data is meaningless in the final model. It could be argued that it did not harm this company economically because the model trained without the data would still have an almost equivalent financial impact.
> It’s okay to vote for or against that, but the potential systemic effect of that vote should also be kept in mind.
My position above was clear, I do not think the law should be changed yet. The systematic change is from someone stating a violation happening when I do not believe that it is a violation. This lawsuit could result in models like Stable Diffusion becoming illegal, which I view as incredibly harmful to the future of artificial intelligence research.
It's not enough of a generalization to be acceptable IMO.
Let's see GPT-3 as something analogous to a brain. Human brains can do multiple things:
- learn through experience and re-use concepts, but writing completely original code,
- copy a program's structure without copy-pasting the code, effectively re-writing it,
- copy the exact code, with a few minor details changed.
Currently, Copilot does a lot of the last point [1]. So just like humans can choose different actions and the legality depends on the action, ML models can do different things, and these aren't automatically legal by virtue of coming from an ML model.
It's not enough to argue about how machine learning works. ML can do tons of things, and GitHub's current methodology leads to something close to copy-paste. Maybe it can learn a semi-original way to write common things like searching in a list, but for more exotic uses like complex algorithms, being unable to actually understand how to code, it basically has to act as a search engine for existing implementations.
> Do you now owe Disney royalties because you stored their movie in your memories?
That argument makes no sense. Nobody would be complaining if GitHub had just trained a model on that code. The potentially illegal part is offering a service that creates "new" Disney-like movies by assembling parts of Disney's IP.
[1] https://twitter.com/docsparse/status/1581461734665367554
I don't disagree that it is over-trained on certain sequences of words, but, overall, I think the generalization fine. It's often pre-prompted with content it has not seen before, resulting in unique new content. There's nothing copy-pasted about this, just a statistical understanding of what usually happens next.
If the pre-prompt is something very specific, ex. "a dog runs in the park while during the middle of the day, while the sky is the color _____" it will obviously output blue. The same can be true when there are only very specific known algorithms that have been used more frequently than others. And, in the cases where it does commit something arguably comparable to copyright infringement, it would probably on the programmer and not on the model for deciding to use it.
> The potentially illegal part is offering a service that creates "new" Disney-like movies by assembling parts of Disney's IP.
In very specific cases only does it output copyrighted content. Most of the time it is just outputting a generalization of what is expected. It isn't Disney's content, but human content. Also, just creating content that has some similarity isn't copyright infringement. Satire has been well accepted as fair use.
Who are the stakeholders putting the machine to the run? Who owns the machine?
This is much more subjective than clinical rhetoric praising tech may allure to.
There is still the issue of setting boundaries on what to learn from, but it is much more aligned with you taking the responsibility for what your copilot does or doesn’t, and it might give a better window of opportunity to customize it to your needs.
We’d lose economies of scale, but also lose infringement at scale, and gain individual control. Net positives overall ?
Sure, there’s a sense in which copilot is just an alternative way of finding these snippets; if someone used Google to find a piece of code then chose to copy-paste it, the result would be the same. The code is out there on the internet, being indexed - and incorporated into training models.
The difference is that Google will (probably, if they don’t just yank the content into a snippet on the Serp) link you to the GitHub source, where the license should be clearly visible, so if you copy paste it you know what you’re doing. Copilot produces the code without attribution.
But it’s a narrower difference than we might actually wish. What is it about google’s pointing you to a line of code in a GitHub repo that absolves Google from any responsibility to tell you that the code it sent you to might be copyrighted? Presumably, when you land on that page you are expected to recognize from context that this is probably licensed code, and go look for the license terms. Why can’t copilot also rely on that same ‘user must recognize that some of the results produced might be copyrighted’ logic?
Worth noting that Google image search has long presented its results under a caption pointing out that the results may be copyrighted and you need to do your own research before using any images it produces based on your query. How different is searching it’s image index and producing potentially copyrighted images it found online, from copilot’s search of ‘how to code’ doing the same thing?
Google shows you where you can find the copyright and license information. GitHub Copilot does not.
> Worth noting that Google image search has long presented its results under a caption pointing out that the results may be copyrighted and you need to do your own research before using any images it produces based on your query.
Because there's a common misconception that "Google images" are legal to use for any purpose. Afaik, Google has no obligation to correct people on this; nonetheless, they choose to do so.
That the copyright and license information are maybe available there is not something Google search actually knows to be the case.
That information might not actually be there, and Google does not care either way.
Similar to photos, There’s maybe a common misconception that code produced by copilot is free to use for any purpose. Is copilot under an obligation to point out that that might not be the case?
Google sends you to where it found the code, on a best-effort basis. Google can't actually, in the general case, do any better than this. Google is a search engine; it's widely understood that, as a search engine, it looks for things and then tells you where it found them (not where they originated from; that's not what the verb "search" normally means, in English).
> Is copilot under an obligation to point out that that might not be the case?
GitHub Copilot is not branded as a search engine. It doesn't give people the option to identify, or verify, the terms under which the output it produces may be used. It doesn't provide any way of discovering the attribution, even in principle.
Normally, when something is given to you without any copyright markings, without any attribution of any kind, or licensing information, or a source:
• the computer probably came up with it on its own, just from the input you gave it; and
• you're free to use it.
This is not the case. GitHub Copilot goes against the expectations of the user; its UX design is actively misleading. This misconception only exists because Microsoft created it.
It's obvious that you've never endured any sort of deep code analysis for license "problems" because then you would know that it is in fact comically easy to tell if someone did this. It happens all the time.
While some detections are false positives, this is in fact why such deep analysis is performed: because getting caught selling a commerical application you don't have the rights to sell can destroy value very rapidly. It halts mergers and acquisitions. It gets products pulled off shelves. It gets people fired.
That's how Leela Chess 0 (LC0) replicated the Alpha-zero performance. In fact, this is actually not that difficult. Assuming you have the means to orchestrate it; all it takes is loading the weights and a batch, computing backprop; and submitting it to the central system which aggregates the gradient updates and then updates the whole network and push new weights (kinda how bitcoin creates a new block).
This is no different to gradient accumulation; just "distributed". In-fact, the system could offload a large number of batches because the returned update is O(1) space to return where n is for batch size; it's just that the O(1) is the size of the network.
To satisfy section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Act, you need to look at four factors. The first cod the purpose and nature of the work, which is where determine if a work is sufficiently transformative to be considered fair use of copyrighted material. There are other factors at play on this test, however. A court would look at what sort of commercial interest and benefit is being made from the use of the material, and even then they may not decide that a non-profit motive is not sufficient to satisfy this test.
The second factor a court will look at is the nature of the copyrighted work. In the case of open source material, it is already published but most licenses quite rightly ask for attribution. A court may decide that not satisfying the attribution of the work may cause it fail this criteria, and prevent it from being fairly used. However on this point, I feel CoPilot may be on more steady ground as the work is already published.
Fair Use doctrine also factors in the amount and substantiality of the work being reproduced. It is the substantiality issue that will likely trip up copilot, as the code snippets in use may be complex enough in nature that it considered a substantial part of the code. A court may well consider an algorithm that took time to create and test, although only a small part of the codebase, is sufficiently complex in that it took substantial effort to create and thus look dimly on its use in a larger derived work.
The fourth factor in play here is the one being argued by the litigant, and I feel will be extremely hard for GitHub to justify; that factor is the effect use of the code has on the potential market or value of the code. Open Source projects rely on volunteers and contributions. Substantial effort is made to actively maintain projects. It is not within the spirit of most projects to have people use unattributed code snippets, because it reduces the value of contributions and improvements to the code project. It also means improvements and contributions are reduced, and it is also hard to distribute acme unity, but and improvement fixes to any project that uses the code. In this regard, CoPilot seems to be completely violating Fair Use doctrine.
So as you can see, Fair Use is way, way more complex than most people realise. Many people think that sufficiently transformative use of copyrighted material is sufficiently for satisfying a Fair Use defence, but in reality it is not.
1. The ability to be able to both run and train these models is going to eventually be plausible on a home machine with even modest hardware.
2. These models, e.g. such as one scraped from all of the code on GitHub, will be publicly available via torrent or whatever.
3. People will be able to run it locally as an integrated plug-in in their IDE of choice, jetbrains, vs code, etc.
4. You'll never know if somebody has lifted a bit of code in violation of a license anymore than you would be able to tell if somebody copy-pasted from stack overflow without attribution in any commercial application