Hacker News Reader

textbook survivorship bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

every bullet hole in that plane is the 1k PRs contributed by copilot. The missing dots, and whole missing planes, are unaccounted for. Ie, "ai ruined my morning"

View on HN

It's not survivorship bias. Survivorship bias would be if you made any conclusions from the 1000 merged PRs (eg. "90% of all merged PRs did not get reverted"). But simply stating the number of PRs is not that.

As with all good marketing, the conclusions omitted and implied, no?

The implied conclusion ("Copilot made 1000 changes to the codebase") is also not survivorship bias.

By that logic, literally every statement would be survivorship bias.

That’s not the implied conclusion my guy. That’s the statement.

Then what do you claim the implied conclusion is?

That the number of successful (as in, merged and works) contributions are greater than those that did not.

Given that Github is continuing with the product and marketing to us it feels sufficient to count that as a conclusion.

If they measured that too it would make it harder to justify a MSFT P/E ratio of 29.6.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com