When we fight, we win

[mttaggart@infosec.exchange]

@tootbrute @drwho How much Copilot slurry have they been forced to swallow; how many Ludovico Technique sessions have they been forced to endure, to arrive at "Consent? Weird idea, but sure?"

[etchedpixels@mastodon.social]

@mttaggart it's techbros so it's never no - it's later.

[kboyd@phpc.social]

@etchedpixels @mttaggart Exactly. All that can be won is a temporary reprieve. Use it to migrate away.

[geofftc@mas.to]

@mttaggart

The standard reply from these guys is always "Upon further reflection, and from feedback from our community, we have realized that fucking with your shit was the wrong call." Same with that Grammerly AI-journalist thing.

[nullagent@partyon.xyz]

What in the fresh hell?

@mttaggart

[kevinrns@mstdn.social]

@mttaggart

Now retreat. Get the hell out. Make a new place that can't be seized by our lords.

[phil_stevens@mastodon.nz]

@mttaggart It's still a good day to spin up a Forgejo box and #gitGone

[glitzersachen@hachyderm.io]

@mttaggart

... until you loose. Frankly, this always follows the same pattern: Provocative change, backing down and after this gauging of the public opinion slowly boiling frog release of the very same feature over a couple of months or years. While our attention is elsewhere.

We only win, if the perpetrators cannot commit future deeds. Going back to the status quo is no win, because the status quo can be attacked again.

[glitzersachen@hachyderm.io]

@mttaggart

"Tim Rogers, principal product manager for Copilot at GitHub, took to Hacker News on Monday to say that giving Copilot the ability to add "tips" to PRs was intended "to help developers learn new ways to use the agent in their workflow."

Hearing feedback from the community following Manson's post and the kerfuffle it generated, Rogers said, has helped him realize that "on reflection," letting Copilot make changes to PRs written by a human without their knowledge "was the wrong judgement call." "

What a dishonest take. "help developers". LOL.

"Was the wrong judgement call".

No. It was an eklatant breach of trust. From which there is no painless recovery. Full stop.

You (remaining clients of github) should just refuse to do business with Github until Tim Rogers has been fired ignominiously (without a golden parachute).

[oberstenzian@mastodon.social]

@mttaggart For now.

[Guest]

@mttaggart sent from my iphone

[burritosommelier@techhub.social]

@mttaggart they’ve proven they can do whatever the fuck they want and not lose enough customers to meaningfully change their behavior (beyond just trying again a bit later more subtly) - just a quick little “oops, our bad - we thought we were helping and you’d appreciate this!”

[loke@functional.cafe]

@mttaggart I mean, to be fair they asked an llm to update their message. They get what they asked for I guess?

They only removed it once they realised it's the best ad against using these tools they could possibly have created.

[upmultimedia@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@mttaggart Shocking that it even happened

[tootbrute@fedi.arkadi.one]

@Su_G corporate speak. non-apology-apology.

[garthoid@infosec.exchange]

@mttaggart

Yet another reason to use an alternative