you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -17 points 6 months ago (9 children)

This is a good thing. If someone is dumping AI code directly into their project without review, it needs to be labeled.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    But the title says "regardless of usage"?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -17 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    You think Copilot is more powerful than my Vim?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago

    Fwiw I use Vim and not Copilot (for now, though for how much longer I can avoid that I do not know). But the point here was "regardless of usage", as others are saying. I do agree with you that code actually written with the help of AI should have that acknowledged somehow - let's just say if someone wanted to do a filter for ah... uh... "reasons".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Read the linked thread and it will clear up your misconceptions

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    The article confirms my statement:

    "rather a desire to support functionality that some customers expect of VS Code w.r.t. AI-generated code"

    People want to know if slop got snuck into their code or if they pull from a project that has slop.

    It should be on by default if you are adding Copilot generated code.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You are right about the current implementation, but the title of the post and what the other person is referring to is the original version. A product manager at Microsoft opened a PR and then an engineer merged it in and that PR caused it to put "co-authored by Copilot" on every commit made through VS Code, regardless of Copilot usage.

    A few hours after the outrage started, the developer showed up and said the intention was only for Copilot generated code and that a mistake had been made (the statement you are referring to). Then he fixed it.

    We're stuck in the outrage loop where someone who missed the whole thing sees something about the incident and posts it in an outrage and then people read that and get angry and post it in other communities. Everyone is talking about how Microslop wants to steal your code instead of the actual problem of product managers at Microsoft using copilot to implement code changes and then a software engineer merging it and it being released without testing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment