[flagged]
No. Why? are you a stupid code advocate yourself? Why wouldnt you want to write good code?
> Besides that there is still a huge difference between someone (human/ai) looking at work and getting inspired/trained on vs. reproducing the same thing.
Those models that are reproducing the same thing was my whole point. Copilot, GPT-3, stable diffusion have all been shown to do it. Copilot excessively so.
> Despite that you also think that just writing some normal code and not a real novel algorithm should be patentable?
Not me, no. Why? Do you really think that? Why would you want to do such a thing!
> I don't even want to have software patents it's so diametral to sharing and progressing together.
Patents arent copyright.
There is no inherent value of knowing how exactly writing a angular form filter or how to retrieve an entity from the backend.
90% of my code (probably more) is not inherently Peace of art. It's code I needed to write to get something done.
Ai should be able to do this and it should be great that it can do this.
Sure, I agree, but not by ignoring laws. The ends do not justify the means.
It's just ridiculous, being able to completely ignore software license terms because "you" did not read the code, "you" got the code from a statistic model from those sources with licenses. It's license laundering.
The same thing as with images.
An AI model that correctly references copyright holders and the applicable licenses would be preferential to not having the code available, IMHO.
I dont see why you would be advocating for people not to share their code in the first place. That seems couterproductive, and against the spirit of open source in general.
I'm genuinely curious, do you think Copilot writes good code?
At the end of they day it should be about products and features and not code