I’m not a lawyer but my understanding these are torts so all you have to prove is Microsoft has liability. I think this would be easy to prove due to the way neural networks work since it’s just a way of performing a search.
Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.
It’s suppose to be the value you added. The investors get payment for the risk they take by investing in or loaning money to the company. If a company has monopoly power and/or gets bailed out by the government consistently there is no risk to investors. What ends up happening is rent seeking a behavior by theses companies and they will also take unnecessary risks since they are incentivized to.
The tests are close to worthless. It is easy to check if someone truly did what they claim on their resume by asking questions about projects they worked on. Caught way more people misrepresenting on their capabilities by doing that but you have to have people doing the interview who has both breadth and depth in multiple areas.
I rarely see interviewer(s) asking questions to try and discover the person level of knowledge but instead ask questions showing theirs.
The whole long blows up when enough people try to withdraw tether for dollars and they don’t have enough to cover. As long as that doesn’t happen it will be alive. Works just like a Ponzi Scheme or a run on a bank.
Most of us have worked with the person who thinks they know everything. Part of being a good engineer/software developer/scientist is knowing it’s impossible to know everything and being open to new ideas.
Your statement immediately has a problem. How do you define success? Then you have a second problem when you state a person taking one test is also good on a different test.
Going much over 100 has little correlation with wealth which is what most studies use. Then you run into correlation doesn’t equal causation problem too.
First off I said it was a context aware search which it is. It uses past training data to predict what you would type next based on the context ie the code around it. It’s no more intelligent than alpha go. Intelligent AI is considered to be a general ai which no one is even close to building yet.
Since neural networks are pattern matching based on the training input it is a derivative work of the training set. It says it right in first thing that comes up in auto regressive language models use the training input plus context to predict what the next word would be.
Now here where the fun begins if they try this in court. If you claim it’s generating new work then who owns the copyright? You may not realize how big of a deal this is but there was a court case you can lookup where a monkey took a selfy and the person who camera the monkey used tried to claim copyright and lost.
There is nothing intelligent about this. What they did is a context aware search and trying to claim that not what this is. If it was just used as a search engine and people weren’t using the results or following the license of the original source, then it would fine. There has been so much of a hype of machine learning people likely have a false impression of what it is.
Why is everyone ignoring the fact what neural networks do? It is being used as a search context aware pattern matching and use that to predict what you will write next. Of course it's going to return copyrighted works based on what you right.
It's a pattern matching algorithm what exactly did they think it was going to do?
Since it’s a tort I don’t think you have to prove they should have know it would return copyrighted code, the fact that it does is enough to have liability.