[belorn]

Microsoft made a bet that releasing Copilot will mean more profits than the legal issues might cost them. This doesn't mean anything if there is or isn't a problem with it.

The simply way to test the legal theory behind copilot would be to write a AI that write music notes, using music scraped from youtube or any other large music library. The idea that one can train on "public available material" and produce algorithms that output large chunk of copyrighted material is a bit untested in court, but go against the wrong target and we will quickly see a response. We have actually seen some traces of this with news bots that scrapes news site and produce "novel" interpretation of existing news, especially sports news.

[ShamelessC]

This is what I'm talking about. Are we commenting on a news report of someone actually doing what you're describing - filling a suit or legal action of any kind against MS for this?

No, we're not. Further, Amazon just announced a similar product and Salesforce has literally _released weights_ for their code models. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Actually enforcing any action when the representations are learned rather than hard-coded just seems impossible to me. They have a check box that removes any predictions matching existing code - that basically makes it impossible to discern the source since this will be based on some subjective "semantic closeness" BS.