Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)

[Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>]

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-07-24 11:11]:
> When I see a radical view, I call it "radical".  Promoting Free
> Software requires healthy pragmatism, because we want the Free
> Software to flourish and remain relevant by picking up the advances in
> technology.  Rejecting such new technologies just because there's some
> doubts expressed by someone in some blog is "radical", and IMO
> eventually detrimental to Free Software development.  We should
> instead carefully and independently assess the issues and make our own
> judgment based on specific details of each such development.  We
> cannot run away of every idea because some people say it might cause
> trouble in some cases.

I am totally for advances of technology as long as we foster free
software and freedom in computing. We have too little of AI today in
21st century.

Question is definitely not so general how presented in your paragraph
above. It is very specific, related on how to solve licensing issues.

There are no doubts that code may be copied verbatin, as here is
authorized and official documentation by Github related to Copilot:
https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation

It is not related to various other AIs, etc. I am not sure if the same
AI is even used in Pen.el. It may not be relevant. In the Copilot
documentation it says: 

Quote:

This investigation demonstrates that GitHub Copilot can quote a body
of code verbatim, but that it rarely does so, and when it does, it
mostly quotes code that everybody quotes, and mostly at the beginning
of a file, as if to break the ice.

Additionally I have been using OpenAI and found not 0.1 percent
verbatim responses, I could find those pages on Internet from where
verbatim paragraphs were cited. I am still in playground. I can find
paragraphs from websites from our competitors as a response. I still
have to discover I in the AI in the playground of OpenAI service.

Licensing issues I have made and for which I have found partial
solution are in no way related to rejecting, rather to adopting it in
free software.

My question was how we can adopt the code generated into free software
(for example by using Pen.el) as it generates code by using other GPL
free software without attributions. 

Partially it is resolved in the US, though unproven and with great
conflict with authors. It does not give assurance. I am not sure if I
can generate the code and that it is really "original" and
infringement free.

Is the OpenAI company giving me some kind of guarantee that I will be
held without liabilities if I use that code?

Thus those issues may be temporarily brushed off with "fair use" in
US, they remain unsolved in the US until the first few court cases or
class action suite, and are not resolved on international level at
all.

Julia Reda's statement does not apply in all jurisdictions.

At this moment there is no verified legal statement by let us say FSF
attorneys or legal experts or some other organization that will
confirm legal status of such generated code or text on international
level. 


Jean

Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
https://www.fsf.org/campaigns

In support of Richard M. Stallman
https://stallmansupport.org/