| Prior statement by me within thread you are responding to: >> “Are you aware of any copyrighted material that was illegally loaded to GitHub that has been proven to be used by CoPilot, it’s use was not transformative — AND - GitHub has not removed it from the model?” Speculative claims to me are do not merit any response, especially when accusing party of something for which you have no related evidence; which actually might be defamation. If you have any creditable, independently verifiable, material, etc - evidence of a violation of a specific reproducible CoPilot output, which is documented as having been a valid copyright violation by an unauthorized party, and it has not been removed from the model — please feel free to share links. As is, GitHub has the right to use code unless they receive what I just requested multiple times from you and appears possible you’re intentionally ignoring for reasons I do not understand. If I have missed something, it’s not intentional, happy to address any errors or omissions on my party if they exist; assuming you’re not skipping over my points. |
Snippets of code were already found, and MS did not removed them from the model but put an IF check to make sure is not appearing again.
So now I need to find specially for you a new snippet and also somehow ensure MS won't add it in the IF checks too ... then I would have proven to you that all that list of conditions are broken.
The proof was already shown, the code was spiting exactly snippets of code, I am not the one that needs to prove that the MS "quick fix" is working correctly now.
Dude I think this kind of AI can be done right, I am not convinced MS did it correct because they already outputed copyrighted code and on top of that they avoided to put their ass on the line. I don't hate the idea of copilot, just the bad implementation of it.