If this tool was trained on open source code, what license does the generated code have? At least with Codepilot people were able to generate verbatim GPL code with typos and everything. More importantly, I wonder if companies behind these type of tools offer legal or financial protections in case GPL code sneaks in and leads to expensive law suits.
I mean people are also trained on GPL code and I bet you can find a ton of functions copies from GPL projects in million other projects.
But as long as these are tiny parts of codebase (which will most probably be the case), I doubt anything can be done with that. No one will go to court because of a few generic functions.
No they weren't able to generate the same existing code, both because that code is not included anywhere in the model, and because Copilot (not "Codepilot") has safeguards against this kind of situation, should it arise in the highly unlikely situation that a snippet is repeated thousands of times across thousands of repositories.
I've gotta let you know that people copy code snippets from all sorts of codebases with little regard for licenses anyway, because they're toothless in 99% of cases, AI or not. It's a nice illusion that anyone respects licenses, but it's just not true.
I've spent hours looking over code before delivering to FAANG. Our company had put a clause into the contract that our code was free of any GPL'd code. It happened before and it was discoved. The whole thing was a very expensive excersice. I'm aware that many small startups, 90% of which go bust anyways, just ignore licenses but that doesn't work when you play with the big boys.
If you look at licensed code, then write new code, do you also bring in those licenses?
It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.
That is going to need a source. All I see in these AI data gathering exercises is that if the industry isn’t a well established litigious one, the companies will happily suck in all the data, license be damned. Code and art both fall under this. But when it comes to music which is heavily litigated, suddenly the only content a company like stable AI will use is open and voluntary because in that case they worry about “overfitting and legal issues”. (Refer Harmon ai)
Hypocrisy dressing up as progress in the machine learning field has been one of the most embarrassing scenes in software engineering recently. The genie may be out of the bottle but the fact is that a bunch of software engineers with a “move fast ethics later” attitude are the ones who let it out and they shouldn’t get to shrug it off for free.
>It's been proved in court that AI does not infringe on copyright or licenses since it generates things from an understanding of the whole, instead of directly stealing, just like the human brain does.
Do you have a source for that?
This SF Conservancy article[0] says that's not true:
>Consider GitHub’s claim that “training ML systems on public data is fair use”. We have not found any case of note — at least in the USA — that truly contemplates that question.
The first major court case I know about is the class-action case Matthew Butterick is trying to build.[1]
astonishingly enough every sentence in this post is untrue. There's been no court case on any of the models in question here. They don't work like human brains, nor understand anything they output. Even if they did of course that output would still be subject to licenses, given that human code is subject to them, which is why those licenses exist in the first place.
If you ever plan to steal someone's code and justify it with "my brain is able to learn, therefore copyright doesn't exist" I warn you right now this will not fly.
> Could Throat mics be the ultimate in high quality audio for cheap?
How can those microphones even capture fricatives or plosives in decent quality? Most of the vocal tract lies behind the throat. I looked for some examlpes and they all sound terrible.
If you want good and cheap audio, get an off-brand USB large diaphragm condenser mic, for example this:
A commonly used way to create an discrete sine wave efficiently is to use an IIR oscilator. If it needs to be long running, use a real sin to correct for rounding errors every N samples. If you're using something like Q30 fixed point that correction doesn't have to happen that often.
The IIR oscillators quickly deterioritate, though. A more accurate way is to do something CORDIC-inspired: Start with a 2D point in [1,0]. Every iteration, you rotate it by (2pi f T) radians (where f is the frequency you want, and T is 1/48000 or whatever). This requires you to have precomputed sin and cos of those values for the rotation matrix, but that can be done once, up-front, as long as you don't need to change the frequency. If you do this for every sample, x will trace out your cos() and y will trace out your sin().
Accuracy errors are easy to account for in this scheme; just renormalize the vector so that the length is 1. It's cheaper and less code than doing a sin().
By the way, for linear interpolation (if you wish to keep the table), usually x + (y-x)*t is faster than x*(1-t) + y*t.
Too bad they are chasing all the bad trends (notch, no audio jack, camera bump, flatness over battery size, growing size). That pretty much kills it for me.
Especially the audio jack is a hard sell when their mission statement is sustainability.
> the audio jack is a hard sell when their mission statement is sustainability.
Yeah, especially when they have a blurb on their preorder page about how they don't include earphones with the phone "for sustainability, so that you can re-use the ones you already have".
That's going to be difficult if I can't plug them in, no? I think your marketing team just accidentally that entire premise.
The audio jack sounds weird in terms of sustainability, but supposedly it's to make the phone itself last longer:
> A notable downside compared to previous Fairphones is that the Fairphone 4 no longer includes a 3.5mm headphone jack, a choice that feels at odds with the company’s otherwise customer-first approach. Fairphone tells me it made this decision in order to be able to offer an official IP rating for dust and water resistance, which was missing from the company’s previous phones. It’s only IP54, which means it’s protected from light splashes rather than full submersion, but that’s impressive in light of its removable rear cover and modular design.
Motorola can include a 3.5mm jack in the moto x4 and get an IP68 rating. Why does Fairphone have to eliminate it to get an IP54 rating? Clearly, having a 3.5mm jack is not an impediment to getting an IP54 rating.
The S5 had a removable battery and backplate with headphone jack exposed, and had a IP67 rating. It's easy enough to do just no one wants to put in the engineering work.
It's worse in every possible way: worse quality (improved recently, still worse), expensive, includes non replaceable batteries, therefore requires charging and increases pollution when the user is forced to ditch the phones just because the batteries died.
My first wireless headphones are 5 years old and not showing any noticeable battery degradation. If they die, they’ll be sent in for recycling. Assuming the battery gets recycled, I don’t see a significant difference other than the lack of copper wiring.
If you consider that earphone in general are not that much durable and a wireless earphone has more environmental impact to be produced (battery, bluetooth components) while the old audio jack is simpler and still a standard.
