• dinomug@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 years ago

    I will ignore the kind of person is writing this article (NATO supporter) and I’ll just focusing in the article itself.

    The main goals that the article aims to reach, and are to validate the Microsoft’s behavior are:

    • A weird interpretation of what public domain means.
    • It’s not a legal issue. It’s a problem of the copyleft / free software communities.
    • The output generated by an IA doesn’t have a license.

    As someone said on the post’s comments:

    Hi, nice article. In the article you often use the word like “training of the AI” or some variations of it. This hides one big misunderstanding: this is not actually “intelligent”, this is a statistically programmed software. It is not intelligent it is only programmed to output the best results based statistically on the data it is used to program the software.

    A copy/paste of the original fast inverse square root code made by Copilot or it’s so smart that it can “swear”.


    By the way, I think it’s important to implement a Copilot alternative now!! (Comrade??) which should be “trained” with fair/legal source code given by its creators, supported by the entire community and independent of any corporation. Of course free in both senses.