51–60 of 796 posts
IMHO, it's still far from GA quality/usability. A must-have feature that's missing is a toggle switch that lets you temporarily turn it off. Without a feature, it can get really noisy.
Does Copilot already display the licenses of the code it might insert/suggest, or assure the developer, that the inserted/suggested code is not a verbatim copy of existing code? How can developers be sure, that they are not violating licenses by using Copilot?
From the FAQ """ We built a filter to help detect and suppress the rare instances where a GitHub Copilot suggestion contains code that matches public code on GitHub. You have the choice to turn that filter on or off during setup. With the filter on, GitHub Copilot checks code suggestions with its surrounding code for matches or near matches (ignoring whitespace) against public code on GitHub of about 150 characters.…
Does Copilot already display the licenses of the code it might insert/suggest, or assure the developer, that the inserted/suggested code is not a verbatim copy of existing code? How can developers be sure, that they are not violating licenses by using Copilot?
Others may have a different experience, but I have never seen Copilot offer suggestions anywhere near complicated/unique enough for it to matter. That’s not a knock on Copilot, I think it’s a great product and I happily subscribed today after using it the last few months!
Also feels kind of icky to train on open source projects and then charge for the output.
I hope I never again have to work on a codebase/language where copilot would be worth subscribing to.
Unnecessary hate. I used it a while ago while writing some complex aggregation and grouping of data. It was pretty painful to write until I tried with Copilot and the result is both accurate and easy to read. I wrote unit tests and it's been fine ever since. This is but one example of the value of it. I am sure some of the typical cynicism here will turn this into a protracted argument of "well maybe you shouldn't be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Previously discussed at length here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773157 > or assure the developer, that the inserted/suggested code is not a verbatim copy of existing code No, it does not do that. > How can developers be sure, that they are not violating licenses by using Copilot There are no clear answers.
from Microsofts standpoint the shot across the bow for open source licenses is clear: do you have enough lawyers and experts to convince a gerontocracy of the legislative branch of the US government that its not "okay because its AI" because if you dont, then thanks for the code nerd.
Shouldn't Copilot technically be FOSS since it trains on open source?
Given the cost of single GPT-3 codex query, it's very likely that Microsoft/Github is still taking a huge operating loss at 10USD per month.
I've enjoyed using it for free, but not sure it's worth the $10/mo yet. When it works great, it's a nice-to-have for speeding up development but has yet to give me anything I wouldn't be able to just write myself. And when I wish it would give me the answer to something I don't know how to do, it spits out something very wrong. Also feels kind of icky to train on open source projects and then charge for the output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d be even more curious (more philosophically than anything) as to who is liable for the mishap if Copilot suggests something that ends up violating a license. Is it the developer? The developer’s company? GitHub? Maybe the “AI” is the ultimate scapegoat (“we can’t be liable for what our helpful robot decides to do”)!
The details might differ per country, but my non-lawyer intuition clearly says that you are responsible for the code you publish, no matter what tool has suggested it.