It is not just a tool for students to write assignments. In experienced hands it can easily double your productivity.
Here is an example where it helps. I tried to initiate a connection to a Mongodb server using Python. While i have used many databases before, I have never used Python and MongoDB together. So, i knew i would have to have some kind of MongoDB library, a connection Factory and a connection string. I could have googled all of these things.
I did the following in VS Code using CoPilot. def get_db():
"""Initialise a MongoDB connection to a local database"""
db = getattr(g, '_database', None)
if db is None:
db = g._database = return db
Why this is a productivity boost is that i did not have to alt-tab to a browser, search for "pythong mongodb tutorial example" and then type it out. I was able to do the whole thing from VS Code and since i use vsvim, i could do this without taking my fingers off of the keyboard.
This is the next jump since autocompletion. I like it.
Sure it may take a bit more time to get going, but then you'll get it right the first time and learn something along the way. Your copilot example is just another iteration of copy-and-paste some random snippet from StackOverflow in the hope that it will work, but without having seen its context, like from when is the post and what comments, good or bad, did it get.
I'd actually be pretty afraid of a codebase that is created like that.
We have 50+ years of software engineering wisdom to deal with these issues. Testing, Fuzzing, version control, code reviews, the whole gauntlet.
I can't know that my code will be free of critical flaws, but I do understand the common sources of flaws and techniques to avoid them, and I'm quite confident I can build small features like this that simply aren't vulnerable to SQL injection, on the first try and without requiring fuzzers or code review: https://infosec.exchange/@malwaretech/110029899620668108
But I have a feeling for both, which is one of the key components of the skill in our trade.
For idionmatic code, I know the degree to which I'm following how things "should" be done or are "usually" done in a given language. If I'm uncertain, I know that. GPT won't tell me this. Worse, it will confidently claim things, possibly even if presented with evidence to the contrary.
For critical flaws, I know the "dark corners" of the code. Cases which were not obvious to handle or required some trick, etc. I'll test those specifically. With GPTs code, I have no idea what the critical cases are. I can read the code and can try to guess. But it's like outsourcing writing tests to a QA department. Never donna be as effective as the original author of the code. And if I can't trust GPT to write correct code, I can't trust it to write a good test for the code. So, neither the original author of the code (GPT) nor somebody external (me) will be able to test the result properly
Yes because tutorial info on some rando's webpage is never out of date. /s
Essentially, GPT is that rando's webpage but with the metadata stripped away that allowed me to make judgement calls about its trustworthyness. No author, no time, no style to see if somebody is trolling.