Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

github.blog

41–50 of 222 posts

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#41

Anyone have good alternatives for ci/cd on the cheap for a solo dev? I’m blowing through my 1000 mins in days. Thinking to either pool some free tiers or figure something out with spot instances. Also is it just me or is CI/CD tooling still sort of rough all around.

We use jayporeci.in and have never hit capacity problems since we can choose to run it in laptops / servers / spare VMs etc.

Best decision we ever made

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#42

This seems nonsensical. Why would non-actions activity consume actions budget?

Agreed, especially weird since they just rolled out usage-based billing for Co-pilot. It would make a lot more sense to just re-use that usage instead IMHO

It does, read the article. This feature now consumes actions credits and AI credits.

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#43
post #36

As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?

I assume because local models are nowhere near as good. Hoping I’m wrong!

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#44
post #36

As financial markets get tighter AI companies will stop subsidizing their services and charge enough money to actually make a profit. It is time to setup local models. It is cheaper, and you already have a computer. Why keep it idle and pay someone else for their CPU?

Because it doesn't even come close to frontier models in intelligence/speed/price. I can run my 3090 nonstop and rack up an electricity bill that costs more than a subscription and get worse results that are slower. They are ok for simple/non complex things, but that's not really what I need AI for.

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#45
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just you wait, this is a gentle tug to test how hard they can pull when the time comes.

It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out. Usually a tech rugpull like this lasts a number of years. And this sort of has, but the agentic stuff has really only caught on like wildfire in the last, I dunno, six months or so. The rugpull would be way more effective if there could be several years of getting developers addicted to this development paradigm, but alas, the VC money burned was too great to subsi…

Its also a weird way to cede control of the market to the foreign model vendors, because I'm reasonably sure that DeepSeek et al aren't subsidising tokens to the same extent that the big 3's subscription models have been.

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#47

Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down. If they didn’t this cascade of (probably necessary but nevertheless negative for customers) changes might be the tipping point to push a lot of companies to seek other options.

> Good thing GitHub has plenty of built-up goodwill to spend down

Do they, though? I don't know a single person who uses GitHub who actually likes it. It's far more often something like "it's fine, but I miss (GitLab|Gerrit)" or "I stopped using it for personal stuff and moved to (Codeberg|GitLab)."

The brand recognition among non-technical folks is really the strongest selling point in my eyes. And that's irrelevant to ~95% of software development.

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#48
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I give much credence to anything Zitron says, but the amount of inference you can get on a £200 a month OpenAI or Anthropic subscription is easily an order of magnitude more than what you'd get paying the same amount at subscription rate. Although I would also point out that OpenAI recently tripled the amount of Codex inference you get per month for £200 (and to head off the suggestion, this is distinct from…

> Not that I give much credence to anything Zitron says, but the amount of inference you can get on a £200 a month OpenAI or Anthropic subscription is easily an order of magnitude more than what you'd get paying the same amount at subscription rate. Neither of those is how much it actually costs the company selling the service. And I have feeling they are running at loss here so the play is "get everything possible u…

There have been plenty of studies which indicate that inference considered by itself is almost certainly quite profitable at all the frontier labs. The problem is amortizing the cost of all the expensive training runs required to train new models into the revenue stream.

Re: GitHub Copilot code review will start consuming GitHub Actions minutes

#50
post #24
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the unit-economics work out and they can sell $0.99 of tokens for $1.00 I think the margins have to be a lot higher than that in order to give investors the return they're expecting, to continue the never-ending training treadmill, and to build more and more datacenters to accommodate people basically DDOS'ing the GPUs in order to run their workloads. Yes, in theory what you said makes sense. But the tightrope t…

VC investment isn’t about margins, it’s about finding a unicorn. It doesn’t matter if margins are negative if your product is dominant in the market as you can fiddle with the margins after the fact. You just need to be invested long enough to see everyone else fail.

The problem with AI is that there doesn't seem to be a durable barrier to entry for a "winner take all" dynamic to work. The biggest barrier to entry seems to be the capital needed to train the models, but even free models are getting "good enough" for some uses and there's little friction to stop users from switching between models. Many frontends make this explicit by letting you pick the model you want to run inside the same environment.

If prices go up, I suspect a bunch of folks will jump to cheaper, less capable models instead of eating the added cost. The whole value proposition of AI in enterprise is around cost-cutting, so that mentality is likely to persist when choosing which model to pay for.

Post reply on HN