Stable Diffusion is a big deal

I mostly do maintenance of legacy codebases (also known as codebases, lol) where a lot of the work is figuring out where the changes need to be made and actually making the changes is frequently just a few lines here and there.

When I do have to figure out how to use some API, it's often not an open source one, so Copilot would not have it in its corpus.

I think these kinds of conditions are really common since software tends to last for maintenance longer than it is in initial greenfield development.

So I'm confused what kind of work benefits from Copilot. Just pumping out greenfield development of new websites/webapps that don't use much legacy or closed source code or services, just using existing popular open source libraries in commonplace ways?

The other thing I wonder about is code quality. When I look up API docs and stackoverflow examples, I get to read them all, maybe test some examples out in a CLI/REPL, and then decide carefully exactly what to do myself, what special cases to worry about or not, what errors to handle, etc.

Maybe what I end up writing is even the same as Copilot would have written. But in the process, I learn about finer details of the library and make detailed decisions about how to deal with rare edge cases. Might even end up writing a comment calling out a common pitfall I realized might exist.

My question is -- in order to save so much time with Copilot, are you still able to do all this extra thinking and deciding and learning (in cases that warrant it)? Or would doing that just end up consuming most of the time Copilot "saved"?

In other words do you end up producing code much more rapidly, but at the expense of code that looks more like a junior than a senior wrote it, because it is most concerned with working at all, and does not have time to worry about finer details? At the expense of not being as deeply familiar with the foibles of the API you're working on?

Honest questions as I haven't tried Copilot, and these are the thoughts that make me imagine it won't be of value. A lot of what I know I learned from doing the parts of the work that Copilot would be automating. Sure, Copilot would save me time when initially writing it. But would I then have less deep knowledge available when there's a fire in production because I never explored the fine details of my dependencies as much?

https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/wys3w5/app...

...but it seems to just be a copy of this scene from Aladdin:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inzkJ34VMfk&t=20s

Am I missing something?

Either way, I think the current "AI" is fundamentally limited by the statistical approach to problem solving. Without any reasoning capabilities, no amount of incremental improvements will change the fact that neural networks are simply making guesses based on existing data sets. Nothing magical or revolutionary, it's the same thing we've known for many decades.

Cobblers are in just as much demand in most of the world as they always have been. They only fell out of demand in car-dependent areas, which is a small minority of the world population (but a vast majority of the HN commenting population since most of the USA outside of a few cities is car dependent)

I don't know if it has anything to do with construction but doubt it. If you actually walk everywhere shoes don't last very long these days, especially shoes under $100.

There are a lot of other urban services that exist in almost the entire populated world, but that most Americans think quaint because they are not relevant to a car dependent highway world.

All that said, this really is a nitpick and the original point stands very well. Some of us just don't like it when car-dependent people forget that they are a small minority worldwide and instead treat urban walkable people as the insignificant minority! Or rather, HN being a forum for all things interesting, we find it interesting to make it a teachable moment. What could be more interesting than finding out that something that has always seemed obvious to you is actually backwards?