GitHub Copilot 之所以强大，是因为它盗窃了开源代码
Copilot
![](/data/attachment/album/202306/17/153753q7q4gc00zmhuemve.jpg)


<ruby> 软件自由保护协会 <rt>  Software Freedom Conservancy </rt></ruby>（SFC）是一家由开源倡导者组成的非营利性社区。今天（本文原文发表于 2022 年 7 月 5 日），它发布了一篇抨击性的博文，宣布退出 GitHub，并请求其成员及支持者公开谴责该平台。SFC 与 GitHub 的如此纷争，源于这一颇受指责的举动：微软和 OpenAI 训练了一个名为 Copilot 的 AI 系统，而其训练数据的来源，是那些使用了开源许可证公开的代码。开源代码不是捐款箱，不是想拿多少就拿多少，想怎么用就怎么用的。


它更像是摄影作品。即便摄影师没有向你收取照片的使用费，你仍需要在该署名的地方进行署上来源。据 SFC 的一篇 [博文](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/jun/30/give-up-github-launch/) 所述，Copilot 在使用他人的代码片段时，并没有保留来源信息：


“这反映了 GitHub 长期以来的问题，也是我们必须一齐放弃 GitHub 的关键原因。从 Copilot 中，从 GitHub 的代码托管服务中，从我们所见的基本每个领域，我们都发现 GitHub 的行为比其同行要差得多。我们也不相信 Amazon、Atlassian、GitLab 等其他盈利性的代码托管平台，能有杰出的表现。然而，将 GitHub 的行为与其同行相对比较一下，就能发现 GitHub 的行为要差得多了。”


GitHub 是全世界事实上的开源代码仓库。它是 YouTube、Twitter 和 Reddit 的混合体，但专为程序员及其代码服务。自然，替代品是有的。但是，从一个代码仓库生态切换到另一个，并不等同于用 Instagram 来替代 TikTok。微软在 2018 年花了 70 多亿美元来收购 GitHub。从那时起，微软就利用其 OpenAI 的主要受益者的地位，来共同开发 Copilot。并且，要访问 Copilot 服务，只能通过微软的特别邀请，或者支付订阅费。该举激怒了 SFC 及其他开源倡导者，因为微软和 OpenAI 实际上在将他人的代码货币化，同时让使用这些代码的人们不能正确地表明归属信息。


Copilot 必须毁灭。或者，微软和 OpenAI 可以造一台时光机，然后穿越到过去，将 Copilot 数据库中的每一点数据做标记，从而能够为所有输出提供正确的署名。但是，与其去关心你产品或者服务中的伦理问题，不如去鼓动人们，去开拓那荒野西部似的监管环境，后者总是更加简单的。


*（题图：MJ/1a101872-c0d6-475e-b3e2-3646c9a2d66b）*




---


via: <https://www.opensourceforu.com/2022/07/github-copilot-is-only-effective-because-it-steals-open-source-code/>


作者：[Laveesh Kocher](https://www.opensourceforu.com/author/laveesh-kocher/) 选题：[lkxed](https://github.com/lkxed) 译者：[Peaksol](https://github.com/TravinDreek) 校对：[wxy](https://github.com/wxy)


本文由 [LCTT](https://github.com/LCTT/TranslateProject) 原创编译，[Linux中国](https://linux.cn/) 荣誉推出


OK
The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), a non-profit community of open source advocates, announced its withdrawal from GitHub today in a scathing blog post urging members and supporters to publicly condemn the platform. The SFC’s issue with GitHub stems from allegations that Microsoft and OpenAI trained an AI system called Copilot on data that had been made available under an open source licence. Open source code is not like a donation box where you can take whatever you want and use it however you want.

It’s closer to photography. Even if a photographer does not charge you to use one of their images, you are still required to give credit where credit is due. According to an SFC [blog post](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/jun/30/give-up-github-launch/), Copilot does not do this when it comes to using other people’s code snippets:

“This harkens to long-standing problems with GitHub, and the central reason why we must together give up on GitHub. We’ve seen with Copilot, with GitHub’s core hosting service, and in nearly every area of endeavor, GitHub’s behavior is substantially worse than that of their peers. We don’t believe Amazon, Atlassian, GitLab, or any other for-profit hoster are perfect actors. However, a relative comparison of GitHub’s behavior to those of its peers shows that GitHub’s behavior is much worse.”

GitHub is the world’s de facto repository for open source code. It’s a cross between YouTube, Twitter, and Reddit, but for programmers and the code they create. Sure, there are alternatives. Switching from one code-repository ecosystem to another, however, is not the same as trading Instagram for TikTok. Microsoft paid more than $7 billion to acquire GitHub in 2018. Since then, Microsoft has used its position as OpenAI’s primary benefactor to collaborate on the development of Copilot. And access to Copilot is only available through a special invitation from Microsoft or through a paid subscription. The SFC and other open source advocates are outraged because Microsoft and OpenAI are effectively monetizing other people’s code while removing the ability for those who use that code to properly credit those who use it.

Copilot must be killed. Alternately, Microsoft and OpenAI could construct a time machine and travel back in time to label every single datapoint in Copilot’s database, allowing them to create a second model that gives proper credit to every output. But it’s always easier to take advantage of people and exploit the Wild West regulatory environment than it is to care about the ethics of the products and services you offer.