3 ms·

I visited https://copilot.github.com/ https://copilot.github.com/, and I don't know how to feel. Obviously it's a nice achievement, not gonna lie. But I have a

by kif 5y ago

I visited https://copilot.github.com/ https://copilot.github.com/, and I don't know how to feel. Obviously it's a nice achievement, not gonna lie. But I have a feeling it will end up causing more work. e.g. the `averageRuntimeInSeconds` example, I had to spend a bit of time to see if it was actually correct. It has to be, since it's on the front page, but then I realized I'd need to spend time reviewing the AI's code. It's cool as a toy, but I'd like to see where it is one year from now when the wow factor has cooled down a bit.

ec109685 5y ago
It has the ability to generate unit tests as well, which will help cut down some on the verification side if you feed it enough cases.
- CloselyChunky 5y ago
  Well then you have to check the generated tests. That's just one more layer, isn't it?
- freedomben 5y ago
  I think I'd love to use this to generate tests and then write the functions myself. Test generation seems like a killer feature.
  - taftster 5y ago
    Yes!! Totally agree. Imagine writing a method and then telling an AI to write your unit tests for it. The AI would likely be able to come up with the edge cases and such that you would not normally take the time to write. While I think the AI generating your mainline code is interesting, I must certainly agree that generating test code would be the killer feature. I would like to see this showcased a little more on the copilot page.
    - kimburgess 5y ago
      You don’t need AI for that. While example based testing is familiar to most, other approaches exist that can achieve this with less complexity. See: property based testing.
      - taftster 5y ago
        Yes, I agree. But just to ask, wouldn't we consider that a form of AI testing, even just in very primitive form? We're begging the question for the very definition of AI. I would argue that your example is just the primordial version of what machine reasoned testing could potentially offer.
- IncRnd 5y ago
  If you question the veracity of the code that is produced, you have to question the usefulness of the unit test that is produced.
taneq 5y ago
> I had to spend a bit of time to see if it was actually correct. Interesting point - it reminds me of the idea that it’s harder to debug code than to write it. Is it also harder to interpret code you didn’t write than to write it?
stackbutterflow 5y ago
Interesting comment and I agree. Reading and writing code seem to involve different parts of the brain. I wonder if tools like this will create some sort of code review fatigue. I can write code for a few hours a day and enjoy it but I couldn't do code review for hours, every day. This isn't like skimming through a codebase to get a sense of what the code does. You'd have to thoroughly review each line to make sure it does what you want it to do, that there are no bugs. And even then, you'd feel left behind pretty quickly because your brain didn't create the paths to the solution to the problem you're trying to solve. It is like reading a solution to a problem on leetcode vs coming up with it yourself.

by kif 5y ago

ec109685 5y ago

It has the ability to generate unit tests as well, which will help cut down some on the verification side if you feed it enough cases.

CloselyChunky 5y ago
Well then you have to check the generated tests. That's just one more layer, isn't it?
freedomben 5y ago
I think I'd love to use this to generate tests and then write the functions myself. Test generation seems like a killer feature.
- taftster 5y ago
  Yes!! Totally agree. Imagine writing a method and then telling an AI to write your unit tests for it. The AI would likely be able to come up with the edge cases and such that you would not normally take the time to write. While I think the AI generating your mainline code is interesting, I must certainly agree that generating test code would be the killer feature. I would like to see this showcased a little more on the copilot page.
  - kimburgess 5y ago
    You don’t need AI for that. While example based testing is familiar to most, other approaches exist that can achieve this with less complexity. See: property based testing.
    - taftster 5y ago
      Yes, I agree. But just to ask, wouldn't we consider that a form of AI testing, even just in very primitive form? We're begging the question for the very definition of AI. I would argue that your example is just the primordial version of what machine reasoned testing could potentially offer.
IncRnd 5y ago
If you question the veracity of the code that is produced, you have to question the usefulness of the unit test that is produced.

taneq 5y ago

> I had to spend a bit of time to see if it was actually correct. Interesting point - it reminds me of the idea that it’s harder to debug code than to write it. Is it also harder to interpret code you didn’t write than to write it?

stackbutterflow 5y ago

Interesting comment and I agree. Reading and writing code seem to involve different parts of the brain. I wonder if tools like this will create some sort of code review fatigue. I can write code for a few hours a day and enjoy it but I couldn't do code review for hours, every day. This isn't like skimming through a codebase to get a sense of what the code does. You'd have to thoroughly review each line to make sure it does what you want it to do, that there are no bugs. And even then, you'd feel left behind pretty quickly because your brain didn't create the paths to the solution to the problem you're trying to solve. It is like reading a solution to a problem on leetcode vs coming up with it yourself.