2 ms·
The thing is, devs already write this kind of bug on a regular basis. I saw it firsthand as a pentester. So at worst, it's still matching the status quo.
by sillysaurusx 4y ago
The thing is, devs already write this kind of bug on a regular basis. I saw it firsthand as a pentester. So at worst, it's still matching the status quo.
- mort96 4y agoThat's kind of fallacious. First it assumes that humans and Copilot are about on par just because humans sometimes write that kind of bug; in reality we need statistics about the relative rates, where I would assume that experienced programmers write that kind of bug less frequently than Copilot, since it seems to be in virtually every Copilot show-case. Second, it categorizes humans as a whole into one group and Copilot into another; in reality, there are better and worse human programmers, while there's just the one Copilot which seems to be on par with a pretty shitty programmer.
- lazide 4y agoWell, except humans don’t do it as consistently at scale! Hah
- marcosdumay 4y agoThe programmers that consistently create this kind of code are what is normally called "incompetent". Yes, many companies prefer to hire them, or can only retain them for a variety of reasons. None of this is good in any way. Anyway, those programmers have really good odds to stop creating this kind of code given some learning. While adding Copilot as a "peer" just makes them less likely to learn, and all programmers more likely to act like them. That's not matching the status-quo, that's a very real worsening of it.