Re:Microsoft will assume liability for legal copyright risks...
by regularfry on Friday September 08, 2023 @03:59AM
(#37430829)
https://twitter.com/DocSparse/status/1581461734665367554 is the one I was thinking of. It's not just the copyright header in that case.
Re:Microsoft will assume liability for legal copyright risks...
by spott on Friday September 08, 2023 @05:59AM
(#37431665)
Interesting, though I think I would put those examples under a “will emit copyrighted code if prompted to”. I can’t think of a compelling reason someone would prompt for a sparse matrix function with a “cs_” unless they were searching for copyrighted code they knew existed.
Though that is definitely a simpler prompt than I would have expected was necessary to get such a result. Thanks!
(The first example also isn’t the same code. It is very close, and definitely similar in style, but it isn’t clear that code would a)run, or b) would work as expected. I need to sleep though, so I’m not sure how much that matters.)
Code is also tricky: there are a finite number of ways to write an algorithm, and I’m sure both that multiple people have written the same version of left pad for example, and that it is not possible to copyright something small like that. When the code gets bigger, the likelihood of an llm spitting out large chunks of GPL’d code seems vanishingly small (without asking for something specific like that). Though I’d love to see examples to the contrary.