> If you hover over a line of code in your application, coding assistance services will display code strings of supported function calls available through the coding assistance service that are also present in your current code file. Coding assistive services will retrieve snippets from publicly available open source code showing how others are using those same functions. 3. THIRD PARTY COMPONENTS. The software may include third party components with separate legal notices or governed by other agreements, as may be described in the notices file(s) accompanying the software.
I've read that paragraph multiple times (both in the original and in your post) and I don't see anything that says who owns the resulting text. Just where it comes from. Am I missing something obvious?
>will retrieve snippets from publicly available open source code
Pretty sure it depends on the license the open source project uses. I dont think it's too troublesome if the autocomplete was truly only taken from open source projects, but it wouldn't surprise me if most closed source projects are also weighted into these models...
> What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.
I'd like to hear more nuance with regards to this line of reasoning. Can you conceive of a model that contains highly non-trivial representations of IP owned by others than yourself? Can you conceive that you might "order" the model to "produce" that IP? What happens then?
Try this both for "open source code" as the IP, and "the novel I wrote", and "latest Hollywood movie". The model does not have to be a real model currently available. It's just a thought experiment.
Try also to elaborate on the sliding scale between "an AI model" and "a compression system".
>What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.
If you are instructed by your professor to write an application, do you own the copyright or the professor?
Suddenly, you think you own the copyright again. In fact, in every case, you think you own the copyright. Because of your feelings. That's a common opinion here on HN too. You don't have this opinion by any logical stance. Nor by any legal doctrine.
The fact is: Copyright law applies to human authors. AI is not a human.
Went with Kimi and z.ai a while back, no regrets yet. When I started using it the limit was far away but Anthropic moves the goalposts, tried to get my money back but they rejected it.
Lesson learned, never buy a full year.
Absolutely. Full year subs are all designed to lock you in. For a product with so little transparency and so much volatility in competition, this is a utility loss for nearly every consumer
A lot of trial and error. I've built graphical tools with GD in PHP, the difficult part for me what that the coordinates where inverted..
I only knew how to draw lines and pixels, but I got the job done.
I remember the LinkedIn app that got all your contacts from your phone and tried to add them to your network. I had random people from internet-deals (local craigslist) that where popping up. So strange that this was allowed.
What should matter is intent, the human that gives the orders.
reply