Corn Woman 🌽 @WomanCorn@schelling.pt

I finally turned off GitHub Copilot yesterday. I’ve been using it for about a year on the ‘free for open-source maintainers’ tier. I was skeptical but didn’t want to dismiss it without a fair trial.

It has cost me more time than it has saved. It lets me type faster, which has been useful when writing tests where I’m testing a variety of permutations of an API to check error handling for all of the conditions.

I can recall three places where it has introduced bugs that took me more time to to debug than the total time saving:

The first was something that initially impressed me. I pasted the prose description of how to communicate with an Ethernet MAC into a comment and then wrote some method prototypes. It autocompleted the bodies. All very plausible looking. Only it managed to flip a bit in the MDIO read and write register commands. MDIO is basically a multiplexing system. You have two device registers exposed, one sets the command (read or write a specific internal register) and the other is the value. It got the read and write the wrong way around, so when I thought I was writing a value, I was actually reading. When I thought I was reading, I was actually seeing the value in the last register I thought I had written. It took two of us over a day to debug this. The fix was simple, but the bug was in the middle of correct-looking code. If I’d manually transcribed the command from the data sheet, I would not have got this wrong because I’d have triple checked it.

Another case it had inverted the condition in an if statement inside an error-handling path. The error handling was a rare case and was asymmetric. Hitting the if case when you wanted the else case was okay but the converse was not. Lots of debugging. I learned from this to read the generated code more carefully, but that increased cognitive load and eliminated most of the benefit. Typing code is not the bottleneck and if I have to think about what I want and then read carefully to check it really is what I want, I am slower.

Most recently, I was writing a simple binary search and insertion-deletion operations for a sorted array. I assumed that this was something that had hundreds of examples in the training data and so would be fine. It had all sorts of corner-case bugs. I eventually gave up fixing them and rewrote the code from scratch.

Last week I did some work on a remote machine where I hadn’t set up Copilot and I felt much more productive. Autocomplete was either correct or not present, so I was spending more time thinking about what to write. I don’t entirely trust this kind of subjective judgement, but it was a data point. Around the same time I wrote some code without clangd set up and that really hurt. It turns out I really rely on AST-aware completion to explore APIs. I had to look up more things in the documentation. Copilot was never good for this because it would just bullshit APIs, so something showing up in autocomplete didn’t mean it was real. This would be improved by using a feedback system to require autocomplete outputs to type check, but then they would take much longer to create (probably at least a 10x increase in LLM compute time) and wouldn’t complete fragments, so I don’t see a good path to being able to do this without tight coupling to the LSP server and possibly not even then.

Yesterday I was writing bits of the CHERIoT Programmers’ Guide and it kept autocompleting text in a different writing style, some of which was obviously plagiarised (when I’m describing precisely how to implement a specific, and not very common, lock type with a futex and the autocomplete is a paragraph of text with a lot of detail, I’m confident you don’t have more than one or two examples of that in the training set). It was distracting and annoying. I wrote much faster after turning it off.

So, after giving it a fair try, I have concluded that it is both a net decrease in productivity and probably an increase in legal liability.

Discussions I am not interested in having:

You are holding it wrong. Using Copilot with this magic config setting / prompt tweak makes it better. At its absolute best, it was a small productivity increase, if it needs more effort to use, that will be offset.
This other LLM is much better. I don’t care. The costs of the bullshitting far outweighed the benefits when it worked, to be better it would have to not bullshit, and that’s not something LLMs can do.
It’s great for boilerplate! No. APIs that require every user to write the same code are broken. Fix them, don’t fill the world with more code using them that will need fixing when the APIs change.
Don’t use LLMs for autocomplete, use them for dialogues about the code. Tried that. It’s worse than a rubber duck, which at least knows to stay silent when it doesn’t know what it’s talking about.

The one place Copilot was vaguely useful was hinting at missing abstractions (if it can autocomplete big chunks then my APIs required too much boilerplate and needed better abstractions). The place I thought it might be useful was spotting inconsistent API names and parameter orders but it was actually very bad at this (presumably because of the way it tokenises identifiers?). With a load of examples with consistent names, it would suggest things that didn't match the convention. After using three APIs that all passed the same parameters in the same order, it would suggest flipping the order for the fourth.

#GitHubCopilot #CHERIoT

This amazing new kitchen appliance will let you cook a meal in half the time. Every now and again it’ll slip in some fecal matter or a poison mushroom.

That’s Copilot for programming.

I’ll be honest, hearing SEO people complain about the state of Google now is like hearing an arsonist complain that they just can’t get the quality of kerosene they used to.

I played this with a friend today in Akihabara: [[typing of the dead]].

It's honestly a lot of fun.

@EdBoatConnoisseur @Dude here's the better version

@whitequark

When someone questions the role of linking or dismisses it as spammy behaviour, they are often viewing it through the #closedweb lens, where linking outside the walled garden is discouraged or penalized. The #openweb, however, relies on this practice to thrive. So, before sounding off with uninformed critiques, remember: linking on the #openweb is fundamentally different from linking on the #closedweb.

#Openweb: This refers to the original, decentralized ethos of the internet, built on openness, freedom, and people's autonomy. Linking enhances knowledge sharing, amplifies lesser-known voices, and enables people to explore varied content freely.

#Closedweb: This describes platforms dominated by algorithms, corporate interests, and paywalls. On #dotcons, linking is often spam and is penalized or buried, precisely because it can disrupt the curated control these platforms wield over what people see.

I'm not usually a fan of meme translations, but I think it wouldn't be inappropriate to translate the scene where Kodachi meets Ranma and instantly falls for him with "oh no, he's hot!"

Remember also that part of the adversary here is foreign governments, not actual candidates. Their goal is not necessarily to pick the winner, but rather to weaken the legitimacy of the US government's ability to function. Disinformation about election integrity is a central weapon in their arsenal for achieving this.

The concern here is that old search engines can give you links and you can go into them to verify the content. AI taking over our search engines hides the sources of information, forcing us to blindly trust the AI and wherever it got its information from.

#AI

Instead of "bus number", we should talk about "VC number", like what's the likelihood of somebody rolling up with a dumptruck full of cash and turning the project into a promotion maximizer?

I don't want to convert my entire project to EMCAScript Modules and build it with a Bundler. It doesn't work that way and really doesn't need to work there way.

Confused about the WordPress drama? This corporate governance diagram should clear things up!