121–130 of 245 posts
Wow, it looks like Google and Microsoft timed their announcements for the same day, or perhaps one of them rushed their launch because the other company announced sooner than expected. These are exciting times! https://github.blog/changelog/2025-05-19-github-copilot-codi...
Both announcements on the heels of OpenAI Codex Research Preview too, which is essentially the same product
"Spend your time doing what you want to do!" - I enjoy coding cool new code ....
I think that's the point AI agents are trying to sell. Spend more time on the type of coding tasks you want to do, like coding cool new code, and not the tasks that you don't want to do.
For example, how is Google's "Jules" different than JetBrains' "Junie" as they both sort of read the same (and based on my experience with Junie, Jules seems to offer a similar experience) https://www.jetbrains.com/junie/
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
Complex system requires tons of iterations, the confidence level of each iteration would drop unless there is a good recalibration system between iterations. Power law says a repeated trivial degradation would quickly turn into chaos.
A typical collaboration across a group of people on a meaningfully complex project would require tons of anti-entropy to course correct when it goes off the rails. They are not in docs, some are experiences(been there, done that), some are common sense, some are collective intelligence.
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
I was interested. Clicked the try button and just another wait list. When will Google learn that the method that worked so well with Gmail doesn't work any more. There are so many shiny toys to play with now, I will have forgotten about this tomorrow.
They had to release something, openai is moving at blazing speed
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
Now that every company has a bot, I wish we had some way to better quantify the features. For example, how is Google's "Jules" different than JetBrains' "Junie" as they both sort of read the same (and based on my experience with Junie, Jules seems to offer a similar experience) https://www.jetbrains.com/junie/
The loop is: it identifies which files need to change, creates an action plan, then proceeds with a prompt per file for codegen.
In my experience, the parts up to the codegen are how these tools differ, with Junie being insanely good at identifying which parts of a codebase need change (at least for Java, on a ~250k loc project that I tried it on).
But the actual codegen part is as horrible as when you do it yourself.
Of course I'm not talking about hello world usages of codegen.
I suppose these tools would allow moving the goalpost a bit further down the line for small "from scratch" ideas, compared to not using them.
The copy though: "Spend your time doing what you want to do!" followed by images of play video games (I presume), ride a bicycle, read a book, and play table tennis. I am cool with all of that but it feels like they're suggesting that coding is a chore to be avoided, rather than a creative and enjoyable activity.
I think they are suggesting that you can focus on the code that you want to write - whatever that is. Especially since the first line is, "Jules does coding tasks you don't want to do." I took the first image as being someone working on the computer. Or, take back your time doing whatever you want - e.g. cycling, table tennis, etc.
A new backlog will start to fill up and the cycle repeats.
So, you can assign github issues to this thing, and it can handle them, merge the results in, and mark the bug as fixed? I kind of wonder what would happen if you added a "lead dev" AI that wrote up bugs, assigned them out, and "reviewed" the work. Then you'd add a "boss" AI that made new feature demands of the lead dev AI. Maybe the boss AI could run the program and inspect the experience in some way so it could dem…
I am pretty convinced that a useful skill set for the next few years is being capable at managing[2] these AI tools in their various guises.
[2] - like literally leading your AI's, performance evaluating them, the whole shebang - just being good at making AI work toward business outcomes