I think people's reaction to Copilot betrays their own shortcomings.<p>* If you have so little care, agency and skill that using Copilot results in you generating mountains of code you don't understand, that's on you.<p>* If you think what basically amounts to AI autocomplete will turn you into a bad programmer, then you were already a bad programmer, and that's on you.<p>* If you think what basically amounts to AI autocomplete will replace you, then you don't provide enough value to your employer, and that's on you.<p>* If you are angry about Copilot training on your FOSS code that's FOSS not only to people, but also to companies, machines and to the companies and people using these machines, then you publish under FOSS license without understanding what FOSS is, and that's on you.<p>The only objective problem here is that Copilot will mix-in incompatible licenses, or even proprietary licenses in its training base, and that should be rectified.<p>But it's in beta. So out feedback is expected and welcome, and no need for drama and vitriol.
Well, stack exchange already turned me into a bad programmer, so...<p>I actually think that there are so many layers of software between the app you develop and the machine, that it is almost impossible to know every detail. There are language, runtime, compiler experts that will certainly know more in their respective domain.<p>I develop embedded systems, mostly bare metal and Linux based systems. Being able to read the output of a C compiler can indeed help. But that isn't really my expectation when I develop higher level applications.<p>In general I would support this statement though. Use copilot if it really suggests what you wanted to write anyway and have done so countless times. If it suggest some arcane wundercode, maybe try to write it yourself first.