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

Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 315 posts

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#211

Post by marginalia_nu »

grayhatter wrote: post #198
marginalia_nu wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kinda weird though, like with many things in the industry we seem to be doing things that are far from optimal, but for some reasons organizations that do things differently aren't winning the competition. Ostensibly most successful software is written in languages that aren't very good, with development methodologies that aren't very good, in organizational structures that aren't very good. Where is the existence pr…

because quality has never been the driver of survival. It has always survival. The race is a race of endurance, it's not a competition on merits. Humans would undoubtedly be better without scars, but the same anomaly that gave us scar tissue, gave us faster wound healing. Increasing survival. But scars don't go away, when it'd be better if they did. There's no selection pressure there because it's good enough. IBM st…

This seems like an orthogonal concern. I don't see why quality and correctness would anti-correlate with survivability. I'll ask the same question again, out of all the highly survivable businesses, why are so many seemingly dysfunctional.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#212

Post by [deleted] »

flykespice wrote: post #159
IshKebab wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> training Not what this is about. > How do you asess whether some PR was made by an AI(like the user did)? Searched for PRs authored by copilot or mentioning copilot.

> Searched for PRs authored by copilot or mentioning copilot. So Github copilot forces your PR to tag them as coauthored by Copilot or users can be slick without mentioning it?

[deleted]

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#213

Post by high_priest »

goku12 wrote: post #195
acomjean wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember initially GitHub (before MS) was free for open source and pay for everyone else. It wasn’t an entirely new idea (source forge?) but it use git which was rising in popularity. I think GitHub added the “pull request” as a really useful add on to git and that really made it take off. Oddly I used selfhosted git at an academic institution. I liked it because it was set up to use “hooks” https://git-scm.com/…

> I think GitHub added the “pull request” as a really useful add on to git and that really made it take off. For the sake of correctness, the concept of pull requests was not introduced by Github. It already existed in git in the form of the 'request-pull' subcommand. The fundamental workflow is the same. You send the project maintainer a message requesting a pull of your changes from your own online clone repo. The…

I am stunned by the fact at a 13+years old comment can be dug out, just like this, and presented as a valid argyment in a conversation.

How some people, like you sir, are able to recall such minute events, is amazing.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#214

Post by j45 »

jcgrillo wrote: post #189
j45 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For now. It's important to not confuse activity, with progress, with results. At the same time, it's important to not confuse or downplay results, with progress, with activity. There seems to be activity, progress, and results. It seems to be speeding up. I don't have any preference for or against Tesla. Just observing.

> For now. What can incremental progress do to make a camera see through road salt deposited on its lens? I call bullshit. There isn't any incremental path because it's not physically possible . The photons are stopped by the salt. No amount of "AI" or what the fuck ever else will change this. There is no path towards "progress" here.

My understanding is lenses should be inside the windshield, and a system should not oeprate if it can't see.

I don't operate from an assumption that cameras will remain the same as they are today.

Your comment did remind me about Comma, though.

https://comma.ai/

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#215

Post by utyop22 »

jabwd wrote: post #199
hyperpape wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Version control is almost 50 years old. It has very slowly won. AI adoption is, for better or worse, voluntarily or not, very fast compared to other technologies.

.... which is the problem here. The internet took decades. The iPhone didn't change anything this quickly either. We're seeing massive brain rot in many studies, no real world data that actual shows productivity gains. This adoption rate / shoving is insane. It is not based on anything but dollars.

The way I think of it is the difference between financial wealth and real wealth.

No new real wealth can be created but financial wealth may transfer from the firms buying stuff to the large tech firms - thereby creating new financial wealth for big tech stockholders. In the long run the two should converge - but in the short run they can diverge. And I think that’s what we are seeing.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#216

Post by andrepd »

ch4s3 wrote: post #186
andrepd wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Ahh yes, capitalists noteworthy haters of building trains. If you ignore the private companies that built the NYC subway system(s), all of US freight rail, and invented trains.

It's no coincidence all your examples are over 100 years old lol. The rise of the individual automobile (a very lucrative business proposition in many aspects) was done alongside massive sabotage of competing alternatives, with the disastrous consequences that are today plain.

It's also no coincidence America has built no rail in many decades while centrally planned China built a massive HSR network in the past 15 years.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#217

Post by wiether »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #132
transcriptase wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If outages make headlines and stop whole companies in their tracks worldwide, that’s critical infrastructure, not just network effects.

Git is designed so that you always have the full code you're working on copied to your local machine. Github being down for a short time from time to time should be only a minor inconvenience.

Sure, but GitHub is much more than a git repository. Otherwise companies wouldn't pay for it.

As the centralized git repo, it allows devs to collaborate, by exchanging code/features, tracking issues and doing code reviews. It also provides dependencies management ("Package") and code building/shipping (GH Actions).

Sure, if you usually spend one day or more writing code locally, you're fine. But if you work on multiple features a day, an outage, even of 30 minutes, can have a big impact on a company because of the multiplier effect on all the people affected.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#218

Post by wiether »

1over137 wrote: post #105
chamomeal wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Critical piece of tech infrastructure. Which is absolutely is. When GitHub goes down, the company I work at is pretty much kneecapped for the duration of the outage. If you’re in the middle of a PR, waiting for GitHub actions, doing work in a codespace, or just need to pull/fetch/push changes before you can work, you’re just stuck!

Wow. Why would your company do that? It's easy to self-host gitlab for example.

It's probably easy to self-host Gitlab for a small team working on a limited number of projects.

It's definitely not easy to self-host Gitlab for hundreds of devs working of hundreds of projects. Especially if you use it as your CI/CD pipeline, because now you have to also manage your workers.

Why company chose to pay GitHub instead of self-hosting their Gitlab instance? For the same reason they pay Microsoft for their emails instead of self-hosting them.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#219

Post by marcosdumay »

bee_rider wrote: post #138
chubot wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably get orders from all the way up the food chain to keep the show going. Honestly I think the same thing happened with self-driving cars ~10 years ago. Larry Page and Google's "submarine" marketing convinced investors and CEOs of automakers and tech companies [1] that they were going to become obsolete, and that Google would be taking all that profit. In 2016, GM acquired Cruise for $1 billion or so. It se…

Wonder how far along we’d be on the path to self driving without any hype cycles… I suspect stuff like lane following assist and adaptive cruise control 1) will ultimately provide the path to self driving eventually 2) wasn’t particularly helped by the hype cycle 1 is impossible to say at his point, for 2 I guess somebody who works in the field can come along and correct me.

There are commercial self-driving cab services operating in a couple dozen cities right now.

That's where we are.

Re: Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

#220

Post by CamperBob2 »

hyperpape wrote: post #86
AlexandrB wrote: post #44

I find it weird how companies talk out both sides of their mouth on AI. On the one hand it's this magical tool that will make you 10x more efficient at your job, and on the other it's something they have to market heavily and shove in your face at every turn - sometimes outright forcing you to engage with it. These two things don't seem compatible - if the tool was that good people would be beating down their doors t…

From Dan Luu ( https://danluu.com/wat/ ): > When I joined this company, my team didn't use version control for months and it was a real fight to get everyone to use version control. Although I won that fight, I lost the fight to get people to run a build, let alone run tests, before checking in, so the build is broken multiple times per day. When I mentioned that I thought this was a problem for our productivity, I w…

Sounds like a company full of seriously-terrible developers, from which no valid general conclusions can be drawn.

I use AI a lot myself, but being forced to incorporate it into my workflow is a nonstarter. I'd actively fight against that. It's not even remotely the same thing as fighting source control adoption in general, or refusing to test code before checking it in.

Post reply on HN