Yeah, but you can have it scan without implementing.

It cannot

You gullible person, they write the contracts to protect themselves at your expense. For example:

Check your Disney+ contract before going on a Disney cruise. If you use both services, you waive your right to go to court in case of injury or death on the cruise. Potentially for Life.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertainment/streaming-movies-and-tv/new-disney-terms-of-service-have-a-few-clauses-you-need-to-read/ar-AA1zicFJ

What vibes do you think I'm going off?

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.

Maybe. But what have American tech companies done lately to win my trust in them? Nothing.  So allow me to be skeptical.

Lmao desperately trying to justify sunk cost, I see?

You’re right, it’s not scraping, it’s worse. Most AI bots do scrape sites for data, though since MS has direct access to the GH backend, they don’t even need to scrape the data. You’re giving it to them directly.

The issue here is trust. Microsoft, along with every other company invested in the AI race has proven repeatedly that getting ahead in said race is more important to them than anything else. It’s more important than user privacy, ToS, contracts, intellectual property, and the law itself.

If they stand to make more money screwing you over than they stand to lose from a slap on the wrist in court, the choice is clear. And they will lie to your face about it. Profit machines as big as MS don’t care. They can’t. They are optimized for one thing.

Everything owned by Microsoft is in immediate danger of failing to work correctly forevermore.

Basically anywhere that LLMs are implemented... they are a security vulnerability, for any situation in which they are not sandboxed.

Anything they can interface with?

You can probably trick it or exploit it into doing something unintended or unexpected to anything else it is connected to.

Either that or take advantage of the system that serves as the framework that connects it to other systems.

Theoretically you could use an LLM to do something like come up with more accurate heuristics for identifying malware....

But... they're nowhere near 'intelligent' enough to like, give it a whole code base for some kind of software, and thoroughly make that software 100% secure.

Because Microsoft owns github.

Even without them plugging LLMs into it, using it all as training data, sharing everything connected to it directly with the NSA, they could easily do a more standard enshittification of it.

Oh you have a free github account, you can do X amount of pulls and commits per month, otherwise, subscribe to GitHubPro for $5 a month.

Oh you host some software that's used to antagonize our corporate partners?

Even though its not actually illegal?

Poof, gone, just like when the credit card companies decided nsfw games are verbotten.

Don't forget its more important than human rights!

That's fair, it's certainly not for everyone (nor for every situation).

English needs to use libre a lot more for the clarity.

Other people have good points, but even if you don't care at all about open source or MS, Github's reliability lately has been really bad. I think they've had 3 outages this month already? It's been disruptive at my workplace and we have concerns about how we'd deploy a fix if we had an outage at the same time (since our deploys are automated using GH Actions).

Someday when you’re grown up you will realize how cringe your way of communicating is.

Sure. Any day now.

Being embarrassed by association with people who say things like "all code uploaded to Github is subject to being scraped" might be childish. Not sure it's as childish as being embarrassed by "cringe" though. That would imply I care about your opinion on my communication. I don't.

I do care that you understand that a half dozen people in this thread are actively outing themselves as completely ignorant about the real world of software development and the software industry in general. Probably not surprising given the words "Gentoo" and "Codeberg" in the title of the post.

More distros need to follow. No FOSS should have any relationship to Microsoft or their products.

All code uploaded to Github is scraped

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.

Does Omarchy count as Arch?

Um AAACCCKKKTUALLY it’s only scraping if it comes from the beautifulsoup region of Shodan. Otherwise it’s just Sparkling CIDR.

If you're trying to prove that I can indeed feel cringe, keep going, you're almost there

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.

It's funny that all the pro-AI chuds suddenly coming out of the woodwork to try and say this is a terrible idea.

The because of training claim is wrong.

Quoting the Gentoo post:

Mostly because of the continuous attempts to force Copilot usage for our repositories,

It seems to be about GitHub pushing copilot usage, not them training on data. Moving away doesn't prevent training anyway. And I'm sure someone will host a mirror on hitting if they don't.

It's incredible that you all are still acting like he's talking about individuals and not giant mega corporations that have an army of lawyers working on these contracts.

There's no way these companies would allow ms to train copilot on their proprietary code. Not a single one of you had provided ANY proof that this is actually happening yet.

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.

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)

Codeberg does actively try to prevent bot scraping.