[robotcapital]

Replace the AI agent with any other new technology and this is an example of a company:

1. Working out in the open

2. Dogfooding their own product

3. Pushing the state of the art

Given that the negative impact here falls mostly (completely?) on the Microsoft team which opted into this, is there any reason why we shouldn't be supporting progress here?

[JB_Dev]

100% agree. i’m not sure why everyone is clowning on them here. This process is a win. Do people want this all being hidden instead in a forked private repo?

It’s showing the actual capabilities in practice. That’s much better and way more illuminating than what normally happens with sales and marketing hype.

[rco8786]

Satya says: "I’d say maybe 20%, 30% of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software".

Zuckerberg says: "Our bet is sort of that in the next year probably … maybe half the development is going to be done by AI, as opposed to people, and then that will just kind of increase from there".

It's hard to square those statements up with what we're seeing happen on these PRs.

[constantcrying]

Who is "we" and how and why would "we" "support" or not "support" anything.

Personally I just think it is funny that MS is soft launching a product into total failure.

[throwaway844498]

"Pushing the state of the art" and experimenting on a critical software development framework is probably not the best idea.

[Dlanv]

Why not, when it goes through code review by experienced software engineers who are experts on the subject in a codebase that is covered by extensive unit tests?

[mrguyorama]

>supporting progress

This presupposes AI IS progress.

Nevermind that what this actually shows is an executive or engineering team that so buys their own hype that they didn't even try to run this locally and internally before blasting to the world that their system can't even ensure tests are passing before submitting a PR. They are having a problem with firewall rules blocking the system from seeing CI outcomes and that's part of why it's doing so badly, so why wasn't that verified BEFORE doing this on stage?

"Working out in the open" here is a bad thing. These are issues that SHOULD have been caught by an internal POC FIRST. You don't publicly do bullshit.

"Dogfooding" doesn't require throwing this at important infrastructure code. Does VS code not have small bugs that need fixing? Infrastructure should expect high standards.

"Pushing the state of the art" is comedy. This is the state of the art? This is pushing the state of the art? How much money has been thrown into the fire for this result? How much did each of those PRs cost anyway?

[lawn]

Because they're using it on an extremely popular repository that many people depend on?

And given the absolute garbage the AI is putting out the quality of the repo will drop. Either slop code will get committed or the bots will suck away time from people who could've done something productive instead.