3 ms·

textbook survivorship bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias every bullet hole in that plane is t

textbook survivorship bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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"

n2d4 1y ago
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.
- tines 1y ago
  As with all good marketing, the conclusions omitted and implied, no?
  - n2d4 1y ago
    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.
    - tines 1y ago
      That’s not the implied conclusion my guy. That’s the statement.
      - n2d4 1y ago
        Then what do you claim the implied conclusion is?
        Jenk 1y ago
        That the number of successful (as in, merged and works) contributions are greater than those that did not.
- krainboltgreene 1y ago
  Given that Github is continuing with the product and marketing to us it feels sufficient to count that as a conclusion.
MoreQARespect 1y ago
If they measured that too it would make it harder to justify a MSFT P/E ratio of 29.6.