121–130 of 446 posts
Why are people not bothered by privacy concerns in this case?
If big tech was trustworthy I would use this with glee. But when I see how the world is turning, I'll continue to type boilerplate by hand (as long I'm allowed).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel the opposite of codebases where having high coverage has been a priority: * The tests doesn't actually test functionality, edge cases etc, just that things doesn't crash in a happy-path. * Any changes to an implementation breaks a test needlessly, because the test tests specifics of the implementation, not correctness. Thus it makes refactoring actually harder, since your test said you broke something, but you…
> The tests doesn't actually test functionality, edge cases etc, just that things doesn't crash in a happy-path. This is low coverage. > Any changes to an implementation breaks a test needlessly, because the test tests specifics of the implementation, not correctness. This is bad design. > In codebases for dynamic languages, most of what these tests end up catching is stuff a compiler would catch in a statically type…
No, as a sibling comment to mine shows, it's actually easy to make 100% coverage with bad tests, since one doesn't challenge the implementation to handle edge cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend of a friend, told me he is furiously adding code to Github, with subtle security bugs. He can't wait for it to show up in the proper places...Courtesy of Copilot ;-)
I wonder if that could be a nice money maker. Introduce a lot of generic functions with common names, add security bugs. Maybe add a README entry telling people to not trust the code because you're using it to demonstrate what insecure code looks like, and then wait for some big company with a bug bounty to introduce it to their code base. License your code proprietary of AGPL to make sure the company is the one who…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legally, it needs to be opt-in in order to protect downstream consumers of code written by Copilot. Copilot sometimes reproduces code verbatim. You can't use open source code except under the terms of the license. Authors whose code may be reproduced by Copilot need to grant a license to downstream consumers, and republishers of Copilot-generated code need to adhere to the terms of that license. Copilot is inserting…
Only if the threshold of originality is passed. I feel many of Copilot snippets are so tiny that this threshold is not reached. But not a judge here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshold_of_originality
I can't see any case where originality of the snippet presented by Copilit matters (if Copilot were a person, it would matter to determining if the snippet on its own was copyrightable by Copilot, but still wouldn't be relevant to whether to original copyright was violated.)
How could they support these two random IDEs before Visual Studio proper?
I didn't allow it since I think it implied uploading my code to their servers.