I don't think GitHub even set a precedent for this. My understanding is that they don't train on private repositories per se, though if you access a private repository through copilot, the data flow through copilot can be trained on, which pulls in data from the repo.
So a private repo should be safe, as long as you don't use copilot. While Atlassian wants to pull in data from private issue trackers/wikis.
Listen to yourself. Take a moment and try to unpack the mental gymnastics wrangling you just did. Ask yourself, why does the fact that you have a Copilot subscription make it okay to train on all your private repos?
GitHub does not have any of its own models. It routes to partners like OpenAI. Just because some data is from private repos, doesn’t mean all data is flowing nor does it mean it should be trained on just because it’s being inferences on, and there is a difference on the data that was used vs. all the data from that repo, and difference between just that repo vs. all private repos. And they made it all opted in as default. Draconian.
So yes, they did set a precedent and you’re here arguing why it’s okay.
I’d say those CMU researchers are out of touch with the reality. GitHub can easily overhaul this with a much better system than what those researchers recommended but chooses not to.
GitHub has all kinds of private internal metrics that could update the system to show a much higher signal/quality score. A score that is impervious to manipulation. And extremely well correlated with actual quality and popularity and value, not noise.
Two projects could look exactly the same from visible metrics, and one is complete shell and the other a great project.
But they choose not to publish it.
And those same private signals more effectively spot the signal-rich stargazers than PageRank.
Much more important is who starred it. And are they selective about giving out stars or bookmarking everything. Forks is a closer signal to usage than stargazing.
Indeed, GitHub should set up a monthly quota for available stars to give and correlate the account age with it: either make something up like a "trusted-age-factor" that multiplies any given star by that factor, or scale the available quota accordingly by that factor (and let users star repos repeatedly).
GitHub should also introduce a way to bookmark a repo, additional to the existing options of sponsor/watch/fork/star-ing it.
This is a bad take. If society takes genital mutilation of children seriously, and it gets outlawed in more and more countries, it helps save ALL children from genital mutilation. Only a shortsighted person would see it as a zero sum.
There wasn't really an all lives matter on the same sense as the black lives matter movement.
Plus there's 'all lives matter' as in the proponent doesn't want to do anything, and 'all lives matter' as in police brutality is bad no matter who it's aimed at, and should be stopped completely.
The latter more closely mirrors the parents example.
Further I would say your example is flawed. BLM assumed a level of racism that I don't think there is. This isn't a case of KKK members wanting to get the <racist slur>s out of the country and back where 'they belong' it's more an issue of laziness and profiling. That isn't to say it isn't racism, but just talking about racism allows police that aren't KKK members to tell themselves they aren't the problem. Focussing on the issues of laziness etc means they do actually need to face up to the issues.
The same thing with genital mutilation, this isn't simply a case of something that happens to girls in a far away land, this is happening to kids right now in the west. Focusing on FGM kind of misses the point.
BLM also never claimed cops were KKK members. You're really fictionalizing the movement and its history; also, you have presented zero credibility as an expert in how much racism exists among US police forces.
The KKK reference was to make clear that there are some that might identify themselves as racist. Whereas there are those that may for whatever reason, legitimate or not treat different groups differently. It isn't considered ageist to treat 1 yr olds and 91 year olds differently for example.
You presumably don't class yourself as racist. If someone were to claim your group were racist, would you automatically accept you were? Simply stating the outcome and some extreme examples doesn't force the rest of the group to actually engage with the problem. Worse it could create division where there was none because the majority feel they have to treat a particular group better than the rest.
I'm a white man, I've had similar experiences to what ethnic minorities would describe as racism, except in the context of domestic abuse. Are the police man hating sexists, or is it more that it sounds about right that a man would abuse a woman rather than the other way round, and is more a case of laziness and not really caring, which yes is technically sexist/racist, but ignores the fact that the perpetrators don't think of themselves as racist and were 'just doing their job'.
I have my own experience. And my experience is that they don't give a toss about me as a white male. Should I infer that they are sexist also? Or is it a case of them treating me like shit is related to them treating ethnic minorities like shit? And if that's the case there's a unifying factor more nuanced than just 'racism'
reply