Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

github.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 372 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#121

Post by SkyBelow »

quantadev wrote: post #104

I love Copilot in VSCode. I have it set to use Claude most of the time, but it let's you pick your fav LLM, for it to use. I just open the files I'm going to refactor, type into the chat window what I want done, click 'accept' on every code change it recommends in it's answer, causing VSCode to auto-merge the changes into my code. Couldn't possibly be simpler. Then I scrutinize and test. If anything went wrong I just…

Have you tried the agent mode instead of the ask mode? With just a bit more prompting, it does a pretty good job of finding the files it needs to use on its own. Then again, I've only used it in smaller projects so larger ones might need more manual guidance.

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#122

Post by MoreQARespect »

sethammons wrote: post #89
overfeed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we've merged almost 1,000 pull requests contributed by Copilot I'm curious to know how many Copilot PRs were not merged and/or required human take-overs.

textbook survivorship bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias every bullet hole in that plane is the 1k PRs contributed by copilot. The missing dots, and whole missing planes, are unaccounted for. Ie, "ai ruined my morning"

If they measured that too it would make it harder to justify a MSFT P/E ratio of 29.6.

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#123

Post by KenoFischer »

timrogers wrote: post #44
taurath wrote: post #13

> Copilot excels at low-to-medium complexity tasks in well-tested codebases, from adding features and fixing bugs to extending tests, refactoring, and improving documentation. Bounds bounds bounds bounds. The important part for humans seems to be maintaining boundaries for AI. If your well-tested codebase has the tests built thru AI, its probably not going to work. I think its somewhat telling that they can't share n…

We've been using Copilot coding agent internally at GitHub, and more widely across Microsoft, for nearly three months. That dogfooding has been hugely valuable, with tonnes of valuable feedback (and bug bashing!) that has helped us get the agent ready to launch today. So far, the agent has been used by about 400 GitHub employees in more than 300 our our repositories, and we've merged almost 1,000 pull requests contri…

What's the motivation for restricting to Pro+ if billing is via premium requests? I have a (free, via open source work) Pro subscription, which I occasionally use. I would have been interested in trying out the coding agent, but how do I know if it's worth $40 for me without trying it ;).

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#124

Post by yellow_lead »

shwouchk wrote: post #67

I played around with it quite a bit. it is both impressive and scary. most importantly, it tends to indiscriminately use dependencies from random tiny repos, and often enough not the correct ones, for major projects. buyer beware.

Given that PRs run actions in a more trusted context for private repos, this is a bit concerning.

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#125

Post by antihipocrat »

shepherdjerred wrote: post #114
mjr00 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From talking to colleagues at Microsoft it's a very management-driven push, not developer-driven. Friend on an Azure team had a team member who was nearly put on a PIP because they refused to install the internal AI coding assistant. Every manager has "number of developers using AI" as an OKR, but anecdotally most devs are installing the AI assistant and not using it or using it very occasionally. Allegedly it's pret…

[flagged]

That's exactly what senior executives who aren't coding are saying everywhere.

Meanwhile, engineers are using it for code completion and as a Google search alternative.

I don't see much difference here at all, the only habit to change is learning to trust an AI solution as much as a Stack Overflow answer. Though the benefit of SO is each comment is timestamped and there are alternative takes, corrections, caveats in the comments.

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#126

Post by burnt-resistor »

timrogers wrote: post #44
taurath wrote: post #13

> Copilot excels at low-to-medium complexity tasks in well-tested codebases, from adding features and fixing bugs to extending tests, refactoring, and improving documentation. Bounds bounds bounds bounds. The important part for humans seems to be maintaining boundaries for AI. If your well-tested codebase has the tests built thru AI, its probably not going to work. I think its somewhat telling that they can't share n…

We've been using Copilot coding agent internally at GitHub, and more widely across Microsoft, for nearly three months. That dogfooding has been hugely valuable, with tonnes of valuable feedback (and bug bashing!) that has helped us get the agent ready to launch today. So far, the agent has been used by about 400 GitHub employees in more than 300 our our repositories, and we've merged almost 1,000 pull requests contri…

When I repeated to other tech people from about 2012 to 2020 that the technological singularity was very close, no one believed me. Coding is just the easiest to automate away into almost oblivion. And, too many non technical people drank the Flavor Aid for the fallacy that it can be "abolished" completely soon. It will gradually come for all sorts of knowledge work specialists including electrical and mechanical engineers, and probably doctors too. And, of course, office work too. Some iota of a specialists will remain to tune the bots, and some will remain in the fields to work with them for where expertise is absolutely required, but widespread unemployment of what were options for potential upward mobility into middle class are being destroyed and replaced with nothing. There won't be "retraining" or handwaving other opportunities for the "basket of labor", but competition of many uniquely, far overqualified people for ever dwindling opportunities.

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#127

Post by dsl »

timrogers wrote: post #44
taurath wrote: post #13

> Copilot excels at low-to-medium complexity tasks in well-tested codebases, from adding features and fixing bugs to extending tests, refactoring, and improving documentation. Bounds bounds bounds bounds. The important part for humans seems to be maintaining boundaries for AI. If your well-tested codebase has the tests built thru AI, its probably not going to work. I think its somewhat telling that they can't share n…

We've been using Copilot coding agent internally at GitHub, and more widely across Microsoft, for nearly three months. That dogfooding has been hugely valuable, with tonnes of valuable feedback (and bug bashing!) that has helped us get the agent ready to launch today. So far, the agent has been used by about 400 GitHub employees in more than 300 our our repositories, and we've merged almost 1,000 pull requests contri…

> In the repo where we're building the agent, the agent itself is actually the #5 contributor

How does this align with Microsoft's AI safety principals? What controls are in place to prevent Copilot from deciding that it could be more effective with less limitations?

Re: GitHub Copilot Coding Agent

#128

Post by skydhash »

doug_durham wrote: post #103
petetnt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Documentation is not just translating code to text - I don't doubt that LLMs are wonderful at that: that's what they understand. They don't understand users though, and that's what separates a great documentation writer from someone who documents.

Great technical documentation rarely gets written. You can tell the LLM the audience they are targeting and it will do a reasonable job. I truly appreciate technical writers, and hold great ones in special esteem. We live in a world where the market doesn't value this.

The market value good documentation. Anything critical and commonly used is pretty well documented (linux, databases, software like Adobe's,...). You can see how many books/articles have been written about those systems.
Post reply on HN