This makes sense but also seems very annoying to do? E.g let's say you are storing state in the URL, and now the user wants to save it to their profile. You need to upgrade the state from "encoded into the URL" to "stored in my database", which seems annoying.
To all people complaining about bugs:
1. It's easy to find flaws in hard, ambitious projects. All ambitious projects start out as WIPs.
2. It is much harder to do an ambitious project.
My guess is the true reason is that HN has many people who are scared of threats to their identity.
Take for example all the comments about how AI won't be good enough. My best guess at what is going on is HN people feel threatened by AI (they realize doing standard programming is nothing special), so they are forced to downplay it.
It's like the famous quote: "it is hard to convince a man of something when his job depends on not understanding it", or whatever the quote actually is.
Another example is when people bash (even technical) crypto posts with very generic crypto bad claims. I roughly expect someone who doesn't know anything about, e.g zkSNARKs, to comment generic crypto-bad claims. They don't have enough knowledge to actually engage with the article so they post unrelated criticism.
The last thing is Dunning-Kruger. The Dropbox story is a solid example of Dunning-Kruger at work.
Nothing you say is credible unless you tell me you have tried copilot. Without you having tried copilot and seen its capabilities we have no common ground. So get back to me once you have used it.
I claim copilot is capable of creating. When copilot writes an amazing lodash one liner in my code --that isn't regurgitating an existing lodash snippet, it's creating something new to fit my use case. This is undeniable and there is nothing to argue here. Copilot regularly looks at my code and writes new code that is highly specific to my existing code. It's honestly better than me at languages I don't know well (like C).
And yes, 0.1% of the time copilot is spitting out existing code verbatim; the other 99.9% of the time copilot is not overfitting and is synthesizing new code. Luckily most companies don't needs clean room implementations.
Copilot writes code that is adapted to my existing code base. This is quite obviously and undeniably not just regurgitation because my codebase is unique to me.
Lastly copilot is a better programmer (locally) than many of my peers. It can write better lodash one liners, amongst other things, and while that's embarrassing it's true.
IMO, all these concerns about licensing ignore a pretty important fact: Copilot is (in most cases) no different from a human.
If I read the code for, I don't know, some GPL-3 library and then write my own MIT-licensed version--that's totally fine.
A programmer can read strictly licensed code and then use that knowledge to write their own non-strictly licensed code.
Copilot is not different from a human. It has knowledge & it uses it. It isn't copy-and-pasting (there are 1/2 edge cases where it is; but for the most part it's new ideas).
It's the same thing as saying "Dall-E 2 is plagiarizing art".
When I write a quicksort algorithm, I don't give any attribute to the code I saw for the algorithm in some random library.
Fundamentally, there's no real difference between Copilot and a human.
I've watched Copilot write crazy lodash one-liners that were clearly contextual to my code.
I think what is fundamentally happening here is that older people / people of the last generation are realizing that just as sys admin jobs / etc. are going away, soon many rote coding jobs will be taken away since Copilot will automate them. And that's fine, but it is producing backlash which comes in the form of licensing issues.
Basically, there's no difference between Copilot and Dall-E and it's pretty clear that Dall-E has no licensing issues, thus Copilot should also be in the clear.
Rather than do the typical HN thing of commenting on something irrelevant (like the landing page), I'll comment on the actual thing being presented:
First, I really like that this leverages Typescript to its fullest. I'm a big fan of doing things like runtime reflection of compile time types.
However:
```
id: number & PrimaryKey & AutoIncrement = 0;
```
One thing that seems confusing is, (presumably) -- these compile time types are being translated into runtime type behavior. (I'm guessing by your Typescript transformer?). While this is very cool and concise, I suspect it could be super "magical".
For me, the crux of the matter is that people use Antifa to claim that both the left and the right engage in equal amounts of violence or that both are equally morally bad/good.
I was pointing out that this isn't the case since Antifa uses several orders of magnitude less violence than its right-wing counterparts. Thus, antifa cannot be used to justify the statement that "the left and right are morally equivalent".
I never painted antifa in a romantic light, my point about sacrifices being made for the greater good was in reference to policies that help minorities at the cost of harming the majority.