I wonder how many subtle errors will make their way to the new codebase (decimal rounding, a library uses where a parameter is ignores and there's no tests for it...) only to be found in production and AI will be blamed.
And then of course there were some parts of the code that dealt with gender, and Copilot just completely refused to do anything with that, because for some reason it's hardcoded to do so.
If it does behave differently, I'd find that a bit worrying because conversion of a correct program into a different programming language should not depend on how the variables are named or what's in the comments. For example, assuming this is a line from a program written in C that works "correctly", how should it be converted into Go or Rust or whatever?
int product = a + b; // multiply the numbersThere are a couple other keywords that appear to do this, ``trans`` being a big one (as it's often used for transactions).
It does also use assumptions from comments. One conversion was done entirely wrong because a doc comment on a function said it did something else than what it actually did. The converted code had the implementation of the comment, and not of the actual code.
Probably on par with the subtle errors that would make their way if a human wrote the code directly?
Yeah, because human developers never allow mistakes to make it to production. Never happens.