Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Copilot

copilot.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot

#481

Post by js8 »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #454
inimino wrote: post #385

I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…

I mean you say this, but you and most likely the majority of programmers rely on dozens of repositories, packages and libraries with likely zero deep understanding of it (and at the very least haven't read the source code of ) so I don't really understand the difference here. The advantage of something like this is that instead of having to go to stack overflow or any number of reference sites and copy pasta it can j…

> you and most likely the majority of programmers rely on dozens of repositories, packages and libraries with likely zero deep understanding of it

Perhaps AI should work on simplifying the existing stack first, without breaking the functionality. What about that?

Re: GitHub Copilot

#482

Post by awb »

throwaway675309 wrote: post #454
inimino wrote: post #385

I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…

I mean you say this, but you and most likely the majority of programmers rely on dozens of repositories, packages and libraries with likely zero deep understanding of it (and at the very least haven't read the source code of ) so I don't really understand the difference here. The advantage of something like this is that instead of having to go to stack overflow or any number of reference sites and copy pasta it can j…

> The advantage of something like this is that instead of having to go to stack overflow or any number of reference sites and copy pasta it can just happen automatically without me having to leave my IDE.

In the examples, I wish the auto-generated code came with comments or an explanation like SO does. The code I need help with the most is the code that's a stretch for me to write without Googling. The code I can write in my sleep I'd rather just write without a tool like this.

Re: GitHub Copilot

#483

Post by patrickthebold »

natfriedman wrote: post #345
stefanos82 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of questions: - the generated code by AI belongs to me or GitHub? - under what license the generated code falls under? - if generated code becomes the reason for infringment, who gets the blame or legal action? - how can anyone prove the code was actually generated by Copilot and not the project owner? - if a project member does not agree with the usage of Copilot, what should we do as a team? - can Copilot copy…

In general: (1) training ML systems on public data is fair use (2) the output belongs to the operator, just like with a compiler. On the training question specifically, you can find OpenAI's position, as submitted to the USPTO here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OpenAI_R... We expect that IP and AI will be an interesting policy discussion around the world in the coming years, and we're eager to…

What does "public" mean? Do you mean "public domain", or something else?

Re: GitHub Copilot

#484

Post by spaced-out »

sterlind wrote: post #419
jqbd wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So no need to pay a high level programmer, just a mediocre one and the right AI assistant gives the same results. I think of it as not needing juniors for boring work, all you need as a company is seniors and AI.

without juniors, how do you get more seniors?

Maybe programmers will adopt a similar model to artists and musicians. Do a lot of work for free/practically nothing hoping that some day you can make it "big" and land a full time role.

Re: GitHub Copilot

#485

Post by qihqi »

natfriedman wrote: post #345
stefanos82 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of questions: - the generated code by AI belongs to me or GitHub? - under what license the generated code falls under? - if generated code becomes the reason for infringment, who gets the blame or legal action? - how can anyone prove the code was actually generated by Copilot and not the project owner? - if a project member does not agree with the usage of Copilot, what should we do as a team? - can Copilot copy…

In general: (1) training ML systems on public data is fair use (2) the output belongs to the operator, just like with a compiler. On the training question specifically, you can find OpenAI's position, as submitted to the USPTO here: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OpenAI_R... We expect that IP and AI will be an interesting policy discussion around the world in the coming years, and we're eager to…

   (1) training ML systems on public data is fair use
This one is tricky considering that kNN is also a ML system.

Re: GitHub Copilot

#486

Post by hintymad »

inimino wrote: post #385

I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…

Somehow I don't see people discuss this kind of tools from the perspective of managing essential complexity versus accidental complexity. Maybe copilot just increases the abstraction level of coding, so we can treat generated code as a building block, just like we nowadays rarely needs to care about how to write assembly code or how a balanced tree works?

Re: GitHub Copilot

#487

Post by uticus »

inimino wrote: post #385

I'm amazed to see how positive the overall response is to this idea. Almost as if programmers think that writing programs is the worst part of the job and ready to be automated away. As someone more aligned with the Dijkstra perspective, this seems to me like one of the single worst ideas I've ever seen in this domain. We already have IDEs and other tools leading to an increase in boilerplate and the acceptance of it…

As a counterpoint to most of the other responses, I agree with this comment. In my eyes, this is very similar to the issue of bloated software being enabled by faster processors. This doesn't mean slower processors are the answer, but rather that there are often unintended consequences that need to be considered when solving for a problem. So, as an example of what could be better than making boilerplate easier to type, I would suggest programming languages, frameworks, and tooling that reduce the need in the first place would be worth considering.

Re: GitHub Copilot

#488

Post by rberger »

Assuming this is actually a useful and powerful addition to a programmer's quiver (which it looks like it will be if not already is). Then the tying it to Visual Studio is a variation of Microsoft's "Embrace and Extend" philosophy but for Programmers and open source in general.

It uses Open Source as its input but, as far as I can tell (and I would be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong), CoPilot itself is not Open Source.

It is also tied to Visual Studio, making Visual Studio, a Microsoft Product and on its way to monopoly position even more up the power law curve to monopoly status.

This would be much more interesting and less concerning if CoPilot was Open Source and designed to plug in to other Editors / IDEs like via lsp or something similar.

Re: GitHub Copilot

#489

Post by gmueckl »

I expected the appearance of machine learning based developer tools pretty much the moment Github was bought by MS. Liberal access to everything in the largest collection of source code in the world is the ideal starting point for developer tools like this one. Githun/MS doesnt have to obey the same rate limiting when accessing the site that the rest of the world has to put up with.

Now there are only three questions left: how will this be monetized? Will it recoup the purchasing price of Github? And how can vendor lock in be achieved with this or sny follow up products?

Re: GitHub Copilot

#490

Post by uticus »

flohofwoe wrote: post #36
iwintermute wrote: post #21

So if it was trained using "source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub." was it also GPLv2? So everything generated also GPLv2?

I seem to remember a similar discussion on Intellicode (similar thing, but more like Intellisense, and as Visual Studio plugin), which is trained on "github projects with more than 100 stars". IFIR they check the LICENSE.txt file in the project and ignore projects with an "incompatible" license. I don't have any links handy which would confirm this though.

Could it be this? https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/services/intellicode/

I was wondering the same thing, especially with MS being behind both.

edited: or this? https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/intellicode/cu...

Post reply on HN