zlacker

>>net01+(OP)
> 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 numbers for how they're using it internally. I want to know that Microsoft, the company famous for dog-fooding is using this day in and day out, with success. There's real stuff in there, and my brain has an insanely hard time separating the trillion dollars of hype from the usefulness.

>>taurat+O6
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 contributed by Copilot.

In the repo where we're building the agent, the agent itself is actually the #5 contributor - so we really are using Copilot coding agent to build Copilot coding agent ;)

(Source: I'm the product lead at GitHub for Copilot coding agent.)

>>timrog+Oj
> 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.

>>overfe+Bt
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"

>>setham+uC
It's not survivorship bias. Survivorship bias would be if you made any conclusions from the 1000 merged PRs (eg. "90% of all merged PRs did not get reverted"). But simply stating the number of PRs is not that.

>>n2d4+1L
As with all good marketing, the conclusions omitted and implied, no?

>>tines+341
The implied conclusion ("Copilot made 1000 changes to the codebase") is also not survivorship bias.

By that logic, literally every statement would be survivorship bias.

>>n2d4+nk1
That’s not the implied conclusion my guy. That’s the statement.

>>tines+wt1
Then what do you claim the implied conclusion is?