31–40 of 104 posts
How do you guarantee you will not add GPL or similarly licensed code to my proprietary codebase? Microsoft committed to defending its customers from claims arising from CoPilot output [0]. Would you be confident enough to do likewise? [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/licensing/news/Microsoft-Cop...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that’s the same experience that I havr trying to use any app on the iOS App Store. Download, use one basic feature, use a second feature? Nope sign up first. Ok, signed up. Ok now? Nope, that feature requires a subscription. It is very sneaky because the app does not need to show in-app purchase on the App Store info. I have given up on Apps now because of this.
App developer here. Sadly, it’s what works. Put differently: when users browse for apps, it’s usually when their need for sth that solves the problem is relatively high. Which means you have a much higher chance of converting that user right now during onboarding than anytime later in the lifecycle of your app. I wish Apple properly displayed prices though instead of this sneaky vague “contains in-app purchases” text…
I can't argue with this in general as I do not have the statistics. Personally however I just never give CC info unless I tried the thing and found out that it does work for me.
After trying it for a bit on a very very large codebase(more than the context window supported, albeit I haven't done anything superr insightful yet), the code suggestion does seem better + faster than Copilot.
However, I'm not sure if the "completion" UX is the best way to enhance human programmers with AI. And within the completion realm, leaning on the speed, ie. inferencing on every keystroke, is not that attractive for myself. What attracted me is really the context length. So I'd provide much more examples of cross context code suggestion, similar to the 3js demo from gemini 1.5.
Back to the completion UX thing. I feel like often times seeing the completion pop up is a double edged sword. The moment it pops up, it distracts me from "outputting mode" into "evaluation mode" to see if the result is correct. If it's right, then great, you've saved me time. But for the times where it's wrong(which... was quite a bit for copilot), it's actually a net negative as I now have to re-enter the "outputting mode" and force myself to ignore the new output that will get generated as the new keystroke comes out. With Supermaven, this "switch" happens 10x more than copilot because of the speed as well.
Cursor/Zed with their CMD K code insert is obviously the other "big" ai coding UX.(along with chat) Personally I like them quite a bit and wish they had the speed and context window that supermaven is currently offering. But tbh, all of the UX's feel a little off at the moment...
Just my 2c' as an amateur programmer!
- No details at all on the official extension page in VSCode - I bite the bullet and try anyway - No immediate confirmation after setup - Only one configuration option (log file path) - After I start typing into a buffer, the onboarding notification requires sign-in - Sure, why not - "Link to IDE?" - heck yeah, let's finally go - Sign up for a trial - um... - Requires a CC for a 30-day free trial Respectfully, this i…
Sorry. We should be more clear about the CC being required to sign up for the free trial.
> Please make it easy for users to try your thing out, ideally without barriers such as signups or emails.
"Without signups or emails" definitely implies without credit card authorization!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
next you'll say I need a license to read your comment because I'm copying it in my mind. Crazy!
Asking what the training data was, is valid. Knowing what these AI are trained on is to everyone's benefit.
I didn't say anything about OP's first question. Your comment is about that.
Whose code is it trained on? Do you respect their software licences?
next you'll say I need a license to read your comment because I'm copying it in my mind. Crazy!
Whatever you think makes sense, it would be wise to be careful, because the law might not turn out to be what you want it to be.
- No details at all on the official extension page in VSCode - I bite the bullet and try anyway - No immediate confirmation after setup - Only one configuration option (log file path) - After I start typing into a buffer, the onboarding notification requires sign-in - Sure, why not - "Link to IDE?" - heck yeah, let's finally go - Sign up for a trial - um... - Requires a CC for a 30-day free trial Respectfully, this i…
Sorry. We should be more clear about the CC being required to sign up for the free trial.
>While a model like GPT-4 offers unmatched suggestion quality, it's impossible to run on every keystroke (unless you charge users $1,000/month) Still alot less than the average SWE salary and this cost will go down over time. Anyway, jokes aside, I usually don't use copilot tools in my IDEs. I have zero difficulty with coding itself. I would not enable one unless i'm trying to learn a new language or something. I can…
Honestly, I'm a senior dev and enjoy the copilot stuff. It gets shit wrong most times it needs to do something beyond simple-ish, but for doing boilerplate or repetitive stuff, it's been great!
If you don’t like writing code, find a different line of work.
>While a model like GPT-4 offers unmatched suggestion quality, it's impossible to run on every keystroke (unless you charge users $1,000/month) Still alot less than the average SWE salary and this cost will go down over time. Anyway, jokes aside, I usually don't use copilot tools in my IDEs. I have zero difficulty with coding itself. I would not enable one unless i'm trying to learn a new language or something. I can…
I'd argue the opposite - give something like chatgpt/copilot to a junior engineer and they use it to generate a bunch of overly repetitive code that they don't understand. If they're trying to write anything even slightly non trivial it's not going to work.
In order to get value from AI code generation you need to be competent enough to properly review the output.