dmitrivMS should be fired by microsoft if they wanna take ownership of this legal fiasco
VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
651–660 of 917 posts
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#652Earlier quoted context omitted.
The headline literally says the line is being inserted regardless of usage, which makes it easy to argue that it’s entirely meaningless as an indicator of AI use at all.
If you can get AI to write your slop is it really socially valuable enough to justify copyright? Even before AI copyrighting software was questionable.
The point they're making is that this happens even in code where AI didn't write it. One of the comments on the page is from someone mentioning they have all Copilot and AI features turned off, and it still added this to their commits. You can't conclude anything about whether AI could write it from the presence of this in a commit message.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#653Earlier quoted context omitted.
In literally must have missed that. When did Microsoft ever encourage energy saving? Is this related to power saving for extending laptop battery runtime? But then I don't get the link to renewable energy. Anyway, I agree with the notion of the extreme energy-inefficiency of LLMs. The scale of it makes it hard to imagine any less efficient product will ever be invented.
They literally have a green leaf next to power saving options. Also, there's an option in windows upgrades to time the upgrades to when the grid is mostly renewables.
Apparently since Windows 11, Sun Valley 2 update ("22H2"?) back around 3/2022.
https://www.pcgamer.com/windows-11-update-will-help-your-pc-...
https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2024/04/22/reduc...
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#654Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry spent decades preaching us about power savings, with Microsoft settings application lecturing about power saves and the update app programming them on renewables peak, only for... wasting gigawatts by forcing us to have copilot everywhere. If Microsoft were consistent, which isn't, power saving mode would disable AI features.
They asked developers to help them improve windows battery life on laptops, competing against chromebooks and macbooks. The AI gigawatts are all in data centers. They never cared for the environment (in this way, at least).
Windows still asks you to reduce the refresh rate of your monitor from 240Hz to 60Hz in order to save the environment.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#655I am the person who approved this PR and would like to acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of turning this feature on by default without sufficient upfront validation. There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code. As folks mentioned here - many similar tools do this as well. Obviously, it should not be on…
> There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code. As folks mentioned here - many similar tools do this as well.
Please elaborate on what "similar tools" claim that commits are co-authored by AI when the AI features are all turned off. You're trying to defend the theoretically correct version of this that you didn't make, not the actual version you did make.
> I am open to any (constructive) comments/suggestions
It's hard to take this seriously; you know exactly what you did wrong here and what you should have done instead. Testing that this doesn't happen when Copilot was not used is extremely trivial; if you're not lying about it being unintentional, the fact that it didn't occur to anyone to do it still says more than enough about what the priorities are here. At absolute best, the priorities of you and your team are so fundamentally wrong that it's impossible to trust any of you going forward.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#656I am the person who approved this PR and would like to acknowledge and apologize for the mistake of turning this feature on by default without sufficient upfront validation. There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code. As folks mentioned here - many similar tools do this as well. Obviously, it should not be on…
Interesting case: - a project manager vibe-coded the change without thinking it through at all - the PR was reviewed by an LLM - an actual engineer gave LGTM without really reviewing the changes, trusting the LLM Did I get this right?
The revert commit appears to have also been done by copilot
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
They pretended to be fronting up but didn’t respond to anything after that. Doesn’t seem very commendable to me.
Someone made a mistake, owned up to it and fixed it. No one is entitled to more than that for a free software. Anyone with a bit of software experience knows it’s easy to miss things when you are doing your own tasks + context switching + giving reviews. We should exercise kindness and empathy instead of projecting evil intentions.
> Someone made a mistake, owned up to it and fixed it. No one is entitled to more than that for a free software.
Funny how these "mistakes" only seem to happen in ways that align with the agenda of the supposedly non-evil corporation.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you mean they aren’t part of the commit message? Trailers like (signed off by) are absolutely part of the message. Tools can choose to treat them as special metadata, but they’re part of the commit. The docs for the function to interpret trailers even says this explicitly: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-interpret-trailers > Add or parse structured information in commit messages
I mean that they’re not necessarily part of the --message parameter to `git commit`, but instead part of the --trailer parameter. I don’t know how VSCode is programmed, but it seems plausible that trailers are handled separately from the message parameter. https://git-scm.com/docs/git-commit
We're talking about Git here. The question is not "how VSCode is programmed", the question is "does Git have a special field for commit trailers". The answer is no. Git stores the trailer as part of the commit message.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people who think of themselves as able-bodied never think to poke around in the Accessibility sections of their settings menus. But it turns out that accessibility options are for everyone; people should really think of and evaluate them as first class tools more often
Or,are we just getting older and these things suddenly matter?
These things are like a sidewalk having a ramp that was originally made for wheelchairs but then suddenly everyone uses it because it’s just a nicer experience with less chance of tripping and falling flat on your face.
Re: VS Code inserting 'Co-Authored-by Copilot' into commits regardless of usage
#660Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There was no ill intent by evil corporation, but rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code. As folks mentioned here - many similar tools do this as well. Then make it an extension, not a IDE-behaviour thing. Is that so complicated, so difficult?
It would be tricky, yes, since it depends on core editor functionality which is not exposed through the API.
So why did this feature get rushed out without proper testing? Are you claiming that not having this happen automatically for the commits where Copilot actually co-authored them is so urgent that it was necessary?
I'd argue that this was extremely non-urgent and the fact that this got rushed so sloppily is a giant red flag about the priorities of you and your team. You asked about constructive criticism, and yet you're also acting like this is a one-off innocent mistake by only addressing what you've done to roll this back for now and address the immediate issue. I don't buy the premise that we could trust that this was a mistake made in good faith when it's something that you clearly should have known people would be so upset about if you got it wrong.