31–40 of 771 posts
How have people been thinking about licensing and attribution when it comes to using AI code assistance tools like this? In my personal work, I'm avoiding it since being trained on "publicly available code from GitHub" feels too risky for me if I were to say accidentally pull in GPL code to a private project.
That's exactly why my projects are GPL, so I don't have to worry about that.
How have people been thinking about licensing and attribution when it comes to using AI code assistance tools like this? In my personal work, I'm avoiding it since being trained on "publicly available code from GitHub" feels too risky for me if I were to say accidentally pull in GPL code to a private project.
I have been using it on a fairly large project, and in practice I find it rarely, if ever, spits out anything other than something that resembles what I would have written next anyways, taking context clues from the file I'm editing.
"Next Waitlist by GitHub Next would like permission to: Act on your behalf
Not owned or operated by GitHub"
Why does signing up for a waitlist require me to give permissions to an app to act in my account? An app that isn't even officially from GitHub?
This sets a bad example for permission requests, getting people to just click through the dialog, which requests too much access, and from the wrong domain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you explain your reasoning? You expect that these tools will create more work to get from point A to point B rather than less?
In short: because there will be "current junk pull requests" (see microchanges for readme) but increased x100, if you want to use AI at least write description by yourself, orelse there os no point in your pr as authors might make it themselves
No JetBrains in the preview :(
Another reason to switch from GitHub, I don't want to strengthen this ecosystem. AI-generated description for PR? gg. IMHO it will drastically reduce real productivity for those who will remain on this platform (but still increasing whatever fake metric [accepted pull requests? stars?] people love to check)
>IMHO it will drastically reduce real productivity for those who will remain on this platform Why do you believe this? Everyone I know who has used copilot has found it made them more productive. Admittedly, reports differ wildly on how much more productive from ~10% to ~100%.
Another reason to switch from GitHub, I don't want to strengthen this ecosystem. AI-generated description for PR? gg. IMHO it will drastically reduce real productivity for those who will remain on this platform (but still increasing whatever fake metric [accepted pull requests? stars?] people love to check)
How have people been thinking about licensing and attribution when it comes to using AI code assistance tools like this? In my personal work, I'm avoiding it since being trained on "publicly available code from GitHub" feels too risky for me if I were to say accidentally pull in GPL code to a private project.
As I'm CTO (and thus legally responsible for those agreements that you normally just click through); I read the terms of service, and they do not actually grant license to the code. They say in very clear terms: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING SUGGESTIONS.
So, as I don't want to encourage people to think that they can simply copy over copilot solutions I decided against buying access to it, even though I am quite certain it would have boosted developer productivity. (and goodwill, people like shiny!).
I was also a little concerned because it is additionally the case that a AI is confidently incorrect sometimes, so there are suggestions that have subtle and hard to see bugs. I really don't really want to hear that a bug is caused by AI, since from my perspective the whole point of you being paid a handsome salary comparable to a doctor is because you take responsibility for the code you write; which is actually somewhat in-line with the Copilot license agreement[0]
[0]: https://github.com/customer-terms/github-copilot-product-spe...