Copilot regurgitating Quake code, including sweary comments
I may be over-reading, but I think this kind of example not only demonstrates the pragmatic legal issues, but also the fundamental weaknesses of a solely text-oriented approach to suggesting code. It doesn&#x27;t really seem to have a representation of the problem being solved, or the relationship between things it generates and such a goal. This is not surprising in a tool which claims to work at least a little for almost all languages (i.e. which isn&#x27;t built around any firm concept of the language&#x27;s semantics).<p>I&#x27;d be much more excited by (and less unnerved by) a tool which brought program synthesis into our IDEs, with at least a partial description of intended behavior, especially if searching within larger program spaces could be improved with ML. E.g. here&#x27;s an academic tool from last year which I would love to see productionized.
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QF9KtSwtiQQ" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=QF9KtSwtiQQ</a>