All of the responses are saying that Github reads all code. Github public and Github enterprise are products of the same organisation. Many are even saying they will consume enterprise data anyway despite contracts not to. As I said in my first response, there aren’t many things that would ruin Microsoft’s ability to operate but this is one.
What I meant was that you read the comments, identified inconsistencies from your point of view, and then responded in a confrontational manner without including the whole context.
You do have some good points. But instead of opposing everything that has been said, you could have differentiated much better.
For example:
Public repositories on github.com are definitely used for AI training
Private repositories on github.com are suspected of being used for training
Github Enterprise Cloud is probably contractually protected
Github Enterprise Server is the most secure of all options due to contracts and self-hosting (and therefore the only valid best option for enterprises with proprietary code)
All of the responses are saying that Github reads all code.
The first comment explicitly mentions “hosted on GitHub”, which at least excludes GitHub Enterprise Server, which is self-hosted.
The article is about an open source project that, by definition, uses public repositories.
Github public and Github enterprise are products of the same organisation.
Coming from someone who tells others that they first need to deal with “adult life”, I find this statement surprising. I work for an international company and manage several Github orgas with hundreds of repos. Whether the code is stored on github.com or on our own Github Enterprise server is highly relevant and makes a huge difference.
This is the very simple statement that I was responding to, along with the next line about how using Github is implicit consent to feeding your data to an LLM. If the poster wants nuance, they are free to provide it themselves. You can see in subsequent responses there is none.
Of course them being different matters. That’s my point. Not all code uploaded to Github is being fed into an LLM. It is not consent if you are signing a contract demanding that something not be done. It’s preposterous even at a surface level.
Github Enterprise Server is different from Github Enterprise Cloud, which is what I was talking about, and which is explicitly not used for training LLMs, and if it were, would absolutely kill Github as a product and likely mire Microsoft in years of litigation.
Frankly I don’t know of any software company using Github Enterprise on-prem but I suppose there are probably some CEOs out there who haven’t taken the OpEx pill. Maybe deep in the rainforest with Mokele-Mbembe. Certainly in my sliver of the tech industry, telecoms, the idea of owning a server is akin to having a deskphone and an outgoing mail room.
If the poster wants nuance, they are free to provide it themselves.
And that is the statement where I have to say that we must agree to disagree. I would find it a shame if the Fediverse just became Reddit 2.0.
Frankly I don’t know of any software company using Github Enterprise on-prem …
Self-hosted does not automatically mean on-prem. Most companies will not have their own server racks on site, but will either rent them or, most likely, use their own managed hyperscaler cloud. Github Enterprise Cloud, on the other hand, always runs on Azure and is managed by Microsoft.
Dude AI companies do not give a fuck about the law. It’s hard to prove a specific piece of data was used to train a model so they put everything in they can. There’s literally a lawsuit about this, where Microsoft and others claim using code on GitHub to train is fair use.
As far as I can tell this lawsuit is about copyright infringement of open source code, but as we where talking about an open source project leaving GitHub because of this, that’s what’s relevant.
I myself would not be surprised if they could not withstand the urge to put more high quality code from enterprise users into their training data, but as they are not suing and we don’t know their code, that’s speculation.
So your first two paragraphs admit that you aren’t refuting anything the other guy said. He was clearly talking about enterprise contacts, not the free tier of GitHub which is completely different.
It’s insane how aggressive you guys are being about this despite having zero evidence to back you up other than “corporations lie”, as if other lying corporations don’t have their own small army of lawyers writing these contracts. Those guys will instantly file a lawsuit the moment they suspect their company’s data is getting eaten by copilot.
It would be an incredibly stupid move by Microsoft to do that, especially because it would put all their other contracts with that company at risk (eg office 365, exchange, etc)
All of the responses are saying that Github reads all code. Github public and Github enterprise are products of the same organisation. Many are even saying they will consume enterprise data anyway despite contracts not to. As I said in my first response, there aren’t many things that would ruin Microsoft’s ability to operate but this is one.
What vibes do you think I’m going off?
Lemmy is completely unhinged on any AI topic. You can’t engage rationally with these people.
They have zero evidence that any of their accusations is really happening but they’ll insult and bully people over it anyway.
What I meant was that you read the comments, identified inconsistencies from your point of view, and then responded in a confrontational manner without including the whole context.
You do have some good points. But instead of opposing everything that has been said, you could have differentiated much better.
For example:
only validbest option for enterprises with proprietary code)The first comment explicitly mentions “hosted on GitHub”, which at least excludes GitHub Enterprise Server, which is self-hosted.
The article is about an open source project that, by definition, uses public repositories.
Coming from someone who tells others that they first need to deal with “adult life”, I find this statement surprising. I work for an international company and manage several Github orgas with hundreds of repos. Whether the code is stored on github.com or on our own Github Enterprise server is highly relevant and makes a huge difference.
This is the very simple statement that I was responding to, along with the next line about how using Github is implicit consent to feeding your data to an LLM. If the poster wants nuance, they are free to provide it themselves. You can see in subsequent responses there is none.
Of course them being different matters. That’s my point. Not all code uploaded to Github is being fed into an LLM. It is not consent if you are signing a contract demanding that something not be done. It’s preposterous even at a surface level.
Github Enterprise Server is different from Github Enterprise Cloud, which is what I was talking about, and which is explicitly not used for training LLMs, and if it were, would absolutely kill Github as a product and likely mire Microsoft in years of litigation.
Frankly I don’t know of any software company using Github Enterprise on-prem but I suppose there are probably some CEOs out there who haven’t taken the OpEx pill. Maybe deep in the rainforest with Mokele-Mbembe. Certainly in my sliver of the tech industry, telecoms, the idea of owning a server is akin to having a deskphone and an outgoing mail room.
And that is the statement where I have to say that we must agree to disagree. I would find it a shame if the Fediverse just became Reddit 2.0.
Self-hosted does not automatically mean on-prem. Most companies will not have their own server racks on site, but will either rent them or, most likely, use their own managed hyperscaler cloud. Github Enterprise Cloud, on the other hand, always runs on Azure and is managed by Microsoft.
Dude AI companies do not give a fuck about the law. It’s hard to prove a specific piece of data was used to train a model so they put everything in they can. There’s literally a lawsuit about this, where Microsoft and others claim using code on GitHub to train is fair use.
As far as I can tell this lawsuit is about copyright infringement of open source code, but as we where talking about an open source project leaving GitHub because of this, that’s what’s relevant.
I myself would not be surprised if they could not withstand the urge to put more high quality code from enterprise users into their training data, but as they are not suing and we don’t know their code, that’s speculation.
So your first two paragraphs admit that you aren’t refuting anything the other guy said. He was clearly talking about enterprise contacts, not the free tier of GitHub which is completely different.
It’s insane how aggressive you guys are being about this despite having zero evidence to back you up other than “corporations lie”, as if other lying corporations don’t have their own small army of lawyers writing these contracts. Those guys will instantly file a lawsuit the moment they suspect their company’s data is getting eaten by copilot.
It would be an incredibly stupid move by Microsoft to do that, especially because it would put all their other contracts with that company at risk (eg office 365, exchange, etc)