189 pointsby Anon845 hours ago28 comments
  • kemotep2 hours ago
    Microsoft really needs to get a better handle with the naming conventions.

    There is Microsoft Copilot, which replaced Bing Chat, Cortana and uses OpenAI’s GPT-4 and 5 models.

    There is Github Copilot, the coding autocomplete tool.

    There is Microsoft 365 Copilot, what they now call Office with built in GenAI stuff.

    There is also a Copilot cli that lets you use whatever agent/model backend you want too?

    Everything is Copilot. Laptops sell with Copilot buttons now.

    It is not immediately clear what version of Copilot someone is talking about. 99% of my experience is with the Office and it 100% fails to do the thing it was advertised to do 2 years ago when work initially got the subscription. Point it a SharePoint/OneDrive location, a handful of excel spreadsheets and pdfs/word docs and tell it to make a PowerPoint presentation based on that information.

    It cannot do this. It will spit out nonsense. You have to hold it by the hand tell it everything to do step by step to the point that making the PowerPoint presentation yourself is significantly faster because you don’t have to type out a bunch of prompts and edit it’s garbage output.

    And now it’s clear they aren’t even dogfooding their own LLM products so why should anyone pay for Copilot?

    • pixl972 hours ago
      >Microsoft really needs to get a better handle with the naming conventions

      Microsoft cannot and will not ever get better at naming things. It is said the universe will split open and and eldritch beast will consume the stars the day Microsoft stops using inconsistent and overlapping names for different and conflicting products.

      Isn't that right .Net/dotnet

      • ksec10 minutes ago
        Exactly. In the 50 years history of Microsoft, Office ( Year ) was perhaps the best they did.

        Nadella might have fixed a few things, but Microsoft still have massive room for improvement in many areas.

      • Paradigma1131 minutes ago
        My peak experience so far was trying to search if there was an extension of dotnet interactive for visual studio or only for visual studio code.
        • simplyinfinity21 minutes ago
          the interactive console is built into Visual Studio, no extension needed
      • i80and42 minutes ago
        I remember when everything was "Sign in with .NET Passport" as a yoot and just being like "what the hell are you talking about"
      • twisteriffican hour ago
        Cries in dapper dapr
      • anal_reactoran hour ago
        I'm "I don't know what Xbox is" years old.
        • neogodless43 minutes ago
          It's a music app. I thought that much was obvious.
          • Tempest198111 minutes ago
            Can I pair it with my Zune?
            • throw20251220a few seconds ago
              yes, directly through the Windows Phone using a Silverlight 1.0-enabled appliance.
    • 0xbadcafebee38 minutes ago
      This isn't a Microsoft thing, it's a big dumb corporation thing. Most big corporations are run by dumb executives who are 100% out of touch with the customer (though even if they were in touch, they wouldn't care). Their only consideration is the stock price. If adding new names to things, chanting the magic spell "AI" over and over, and claiming the new name will make them more money can cause the stock price to increase, that's what they'll do. (Making customers happy doesn't make the stock price rise; if it did, we'd all be a lot less depressed and a lot richer)
    • whobrean hour ago
      Not that I disagree, but this is nothing compared to the ".NET" craze in the early 2000s. Everything had to have ".NET" in its name even if it had absolutely nothing to do with the actual .NET technology.

      There was also "Active" before that, but .NET was next level crazy...

    • rubslopes22 minutes ago
      > It cannot do this. It will spit out nonsense.

      It's unbelievable how bad they failed at this. If you do the same with Claude or ChatGPT via simple web interface, they get miles ahead.

    • timr2 hours ago
      > There is Github Copilot, the coding autocomplete tool.

      No, there is Github Copilot, the AI agent tool that also has autocomplete, and a chat UI.

      I understand your point about naming, but it's always helpful to know what the products do.

      • mgkimsal2 hours ago
        > No, there is Github Copilot, the AI agent tool that also has autocomplete, and a chat UI.

        When it came out, Github Copilot was an autocomplete tool. That's it. That may be what the OP was originally using. That's what I used... 2 years ago. That they change the capabilities but don't change the name, yet change names on services that don't change capabilities further illustrates the OP's point, I would say.

        • HarHarVeryFunnyan hour ago
          To be fair, Github Copilot has followed the same arc as Cursor, from AI-enhanced editor with smart autocomplete, to more of an IDE that now supports agentic "vibe coding" and "vibe editing" as well.

          I do agree that conceptually there is a big difference between an editor, even with smart autocomplete, and an agentic coding tool, as typified by Claude Code and other CLI tools, where there is not necessarily any editor involved at all.

        • timr2 hours ago
          That's silly. Gmail is a wildly different product than it was when it launched, but I guess it doesn't count since the name is the same?

          Microsoft may or may not have a "problem" with naming, but if you're going to criticize a product, it's always a good starting place to know what you're criticizing.

          • adastra22an hour ago
            Gmail is basically the same today as when I signed up for the beta. It’s a mail app.
          • kortillaan hour ago
            Gmail is almost identical today as it was when it first launched. It just has fancier JavaScript
          • falsemyrmidonan hour ago
            [dead]
      • jacquesm2 hours ago
        GPs point is that it is confusing, I guess point well made?
        • timr2 hours ago
          Only if the naming confusion kept them from actually bothering to understand what the product is?
          • kemotep2 hours ago
            The confusion is when I say “I have a terrible time using Copilot, I don’t recommend using it” and someone chimes in with how great their experience with Github Copilot is, a completely different product and how I must be “holding it wrong” when that is not the same Copilot. That Microsoft has like 5 different products all using Copilot in the name, even people in this very comment section are only saying “Copilot” so it is hard to know what product they are talking about!
            • timran hour ago
              I mean, sure. But aside from the fact that everything in AI gets reduced to a single word ("Gemini", "ChatGPT", "Claude") [1], it's clearly not an excuse for misrepresenting the functionality of the product when you're writing a post broadly claiming that their AI products don't work.

              Github Copilot is actually a pretty good tool.

              [1] Not just AI. This is true for any major software product line, and why subordinate branding exists.

              • kemotepan hour ago
                I specifically mention that my experience is with the Office 365 Copilot and how terrible that is and in online discussions I mention this and then people jump out of the woodwork to talk about how great Github Copilot is so thank you for demonstrating that exact experience I have every time I mention Copilot :)
          • nananana929 minutes ago
            Naming confusion is a pretty good predictor that it's not worth understanding what the product is.
          • jacquesm2 hours ago
            Apparently, so yes.
            • timr2 hours ago
              Seems like there's another option.
              • Retrican hour ago
                Yep, don’t use any of the products in the first place.

                Leaving Microsoft’s ecosystem a few years ago has been a great productivity boost, saved quite a bit of cash, and dramatically reduced my frustration.

      • mirekrusinan hour ago
        ...it gets better:

        GitHub Copilot is a service, you can buy subscription from here https://github.com/features/copilot.

        GitHub Copilot is available from website https://github.com/copilot together with services like Spark (not available from other places), Spaces, Agents etc.

        GitHub Copilot is VSCode extension which you can download at https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=GitHub.c... and use from VSCode.

        New version has native "Claude Code" integration for Anthropic models served via GitHub Copilot.

        You can also use your own ie. local llama.cpp based provider (if your github copilot subscription has it enabled / allows it at enterprise level).

        Github Copilot CLI is available for download here https://github.com/features/copilot/cli and it's command line interface.

        Copilot for Pull Requests https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-for-pull-requests

        Copilot Next Edit Suggestion https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-next-edit-suggestion...

        Copilot Workspace https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-workspace/

        Copilot for Docs https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-for-docs/

        Copilot Completions CLI https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-completions-cli/

        Copilot Voice https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-voice/

        GitHub Copilot Radar https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-radar/

        Copilot View https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-view/

        Copilot Labs https://githubnext.com/projects/copilot-labs/

        This list doesn't include project names without Copilot in them like "Spark" or "Testpilot" https://githubnext.com/projects/testpilot etc.

        • Octoth0rpean hour ago
          I'm currently using GitHub copilot via Zed and tbh I have no idea which of these this relates to. Perhaps a combination of

          > GitHub Copilot is a service

          and maybe, the api behind

          > GitHub Copilot is VSCode extension

          ???

          What an absolute mess.

    • dec0dedab0dean hour ago
      You are describing everything Microsoft has done since at least the late 90s.
      • bluedino25 minutes ago
        Things were named fine back then. Small Business Server, Office, Frontpage, Internet Information Server, Visual Studio...
    • dobin4 minutes ago
      Like Microsoft Defender, which is now Defender Antivirus, or Defender for Endpoint if you have a real license. You will also get Defender for Identity, and maybe Defender for Office 365, which is probably not ASR. And Defender for Cloud, not to be confused with Defender for Cloud Apps.
    • itissidan hour ago
      My colleague works in a functional role for a medium sized SaaS company(1000-5000 employees), working with banks, family offices, hedge funds. They use teams and copilot, they all hate it.

      One thing that I don't know about is if they have an AI product that can work on combining unstructured and databases to give better insights on any new conversation? e.g. like say the LLM knows how to convert user queries to the domain model of tables and extract information? What companies are doing such things?

      This would be something that can be deployed on-prem/ their own private cloud that is controlled by the company, because the data is quite sensitive.

      • ajcpan hour ago
        Databricks Genie is excellent from my experience, and provides for all your listed requirements.
    • Foobar856833 minutes ago
      It reminds me of IBM and Watson, most likely the same brain rot at the top.
    • adamrezichan hour ago
      > Laptops sell with Copilot buttons now.

      Is it the context menu key? Or did they do another Ctrl+Alt+Shift+Win+L thing?

  • tylerchilds2 hours ago
    This is funny because everyone’s AI strategy should have been

    “What do we actually need to be productive?”

    Which is how Anthropic pulled ahead of Microsoft, that prioritized

    checks notes

    Taking screenshots of every windows user’s desktop every few seconds. For productivity.

    • halaproan hour ago
      Fun fact: I used to automatically screenshot my desktop every few minutes eons ago. This would occasionally save me when I lost some work and could go back to check the screenshots.

      I only gave it up because it felt like a liability and, ahem, it was awkward to review screenshots and delete inopportune ones.

    • bobsmooth2 hours ago
      Recall actually sounds like it could be useful but there's a snowball's chance in hell that I would trust Microsoft to not spy on me.
      • jacquesm2 hours ago
        On the contrary, you could trust it 100% to spy on you. That's the whole reason that functionality exists.
    • paxys2 hours ago
      Anthropic has a model. Microsoft doesn't.
      • satvikpendem2 hours ago
        Microsoft can use OpenAI models but it's not the model that's the problem, it's the application of them. Anthropic simply knows how to execute better.
        • bhadassan hour ago
          they should just acquire one of the many agent code harnesses. Something like opencode works just as well as claude-code and has only been around half of the time.
        • formerly_provenan hour ago
          As evidenced by Anthropic models not performing well in github presents copilot.
          • speedgoose10 minutes ago
            I read that a few times but from my personal observations, Claude Opus 4.5 is not significantly different in GitHub Copilot. The maximum context size is smaller for sure, but I don’t think the model remembers that well when the context is huge.
      • pixl972 hours ago
        Microsoft has a model nearly as old as the company.

        Attempt to build a product... Fail.

        Buy someone else's product/steal someone else's product... Succeed.

        • icedchai25 minutes ago
          We love to hate on Microsoft here, but the fact is they are one of the most diversified tech companies out there. I would say they are probably the most diversified, actually. Operating systems, dev tools, business applications, cloud, consumer apps, SaaS, gaming, hardware. They are everywhere in the stack.
        • Octoth0rpe28 minutes ago
          That's a "business" model, not a language model, which I believe is what the poster is referring to. In any case though, MS does have a number of models, most notably Phi. I don't think anyone is using them for significant work though.
          • pixl9721 minutes ago
            It's a word play, if their LLM model sucks too much they'll get someone else's.

            I mean they fought the browser war for years, then just used Chrome.

            • torginus6 minutes ago
              Which is kind of a bummer - it'd have helped the standards based web to have an actual powerful entity maintain a distinct implementation. Firefox is on life-support and is basically taking code from Blink wholesale, and Webkit isn't really interested in making a browser thats particularly compliant to web standards.

              MS's calculus was obvious - why spend insane amounts of engineering effort to make a browser engine that nobody uses - which is too bad, because if I remember correctly they were not too far behind Chrome in either perf or compatibility for a while.

      • bee_rideran hour ago
        A large language model, or a business model?
    • luddit3an hour ago
      You were robbed last night. No way Jelly Roll should have won.
  • paxys2 hours ago
    For one reason or another everyone seems to be sleeping on Gemini. I have been exclusively using Gemini 3 Flash to code these days and it stands up right alongside Opus and others while having a much smaller, faster and cheaper footprint. Combine it with Antigravity and you're basically using a cheat code.
    • jckahn2 hours ago
      Yeah I don't understand why everyone seems to have forgotten about the Gemini options. Antigravity, Jules, and Gemini CLI are as good as the alternatives but are way more cost effective. I want for nothing with my $20/mo Google AI plan.
      • 37 minutes ago
        undefined
      • paxys2 hours ago
        Yeah I'm on the $20/mo Google plan and have been rate limited maybe twice in 2 months. Tried the equivalent Claude plan for a similar workload and lasted maybe 40 minutes before it asked me to upgrade to Max to continue.
    • whalee2 hours ago
      I think counter to the assumption of myself (and many), for long form agent coding tasks, models are not as easily hot swappable as I thought.

      I have developed decent intuition on what kinds of problems Codex, Claude, Cursor(& sub-variants), Composer etc. will or will not be able to do well across different axes of speed, correctness, architectural taste, ...

      If I had to reflect on why I still don't use Gemini, it's because they were late to the party and I would now have to be intentional about spending time learning yet another set of intuitions about those models.

    • pRusyaan hour ago
      It's the opposite experience for me. Gemini mostly produces made up and outdated stuff.
    • qaq2 hours ago
      Maybe it's the types of projects I work on but Gemini is basically unusable to me. Settled on Claude Code for actual work and Codex for checking Claude's work. If I try to mix in Gemini it will hallucinate issues that do not exist in code at very high rate. Claude and Codex are way more accurate at finding issues that actually exist.
    • OsrsNeedsf2Pan hour ago
      For all the hype I see about Gemini, we integrated it with our product (an AI agent) and it consistently performs worse[0] than Claude Sonnet, Opus, and ChatGPT 5.2

      [0] based on user Thumbs up/Thumbs down voting

    • CuriouslyCan hour ago
      Oddly enough, as impressive as Gemini 3 is, I find myself using it infrequently. The thing Gemini 2.5 had over the other models was dominance in long context, but GPT5.2-codex-max and Opus 4.5 Thinking are decent at long context now, and collectively they're better at all the use cases I care about.
    • psyclobe26 minutes ago
      I tried to use it, kept saying it was at max capacity and nothing would happen. I gave it a good day before giving up.
    • 2 hours ago
      undefined
    • bastawhizan hour ago
      I've never, ever had a good experience with Gemini (3 Pro). It's been embarrassingly bad every time I've tried it, and I've tried it lots of times. It overcomplicates almost everything, hallucinates with impressive frequency, and needs to be repeatedly nudged to get the task fully completed. I have no reason to continue attempting to use it.
    • mfroan hour ago
      For me it just depends on the project. Sometimes one or the other performs better. If I am digging into something tough and I think it's hallucinating or misunderstanding, I will typically try another model.
    • ralusek2 hours ago
      I think Gemini is an excellent model, it's just not a particularly great agent. One of the reasons is that its code output is often structured in a way that looks like it's answering a question, rather than generating production code. It leaves comments everywhere, which are often numbered (which not only is annoying, but also only makes sense if the numbering starts within the frame of reference of the "question" it's "answering").

      It's also just not as good at being self-directed and doing all of the rest of the agent-like behaviors we expect, i.e. breaking down into todolists, determining the appropriate scope of work to accomplish, proper tool calling, etc.

      • sutterdan hour ago
        My go-to models have been Claude and Gemini for a long time. I have been using Gemini for discussions and Claude for coding and now as an agent. Claude has been the best at doing what I want to do and not doing what I don’t want to do. And then my confidence in it took a quantum leap with Opus 4.5. Gemini seems like it has gotten even worse at doing what I want with new releases.
      • freedomben2 hours ago
        Yeah, you may have nailed it. Gemini is a good model, but in the Gemini CLI with a prompt like, "I'd like to add <feature x> support. What are my options? Don't write any code yet" it will proceed to skip right past telling me my options and will go ahead an implement whatever it feels like. Afterward it will print out a list of possible approaches and then tell you why it did the one it did.

        Codex is the best at following instructions IME. Claude is pretty good too but is a little more "creative" than codex at trying to re-interpret my prompt to get at what I "probably" meant rather than what I actually said.

        • michaelcampbell32 minutes ago
          Can you (or anyone) explain how this might be? The "agent" is just a passthrough for the model, no? How is one CLI/TUI tool better than any other, given the same model that it's passing your user input to?

          I am familiar with copilot cli (using models from different providers), OpenCode doing the same, and Claude with just the \A models, but if I ask all 3 the same thing using the same \A model, I SHOULD be getting roughly the same output, modulo LLM nondeterminism, right?

    • satvikpendem2 hours ago
      Eh, it's not near Opus at all, closer to Sonnet. It is nice though with Antigravity because it's free versus being paid in other IDEs like Cursor.
      • causal40 minutes ago
        Yeah use Flash 3 for easy + fast stuff, but it can't hold the plot like Opus or Codex 5
    • tiangewu34 minutes ago
      [dead]
    • catlover762 hours ago
      It's ok, but it too frequently edits WAY more than it needs to in order to accomplish the task at hand.

      GPT-5.2 sometimes does this too. Opus-4.5 is the best at understanding what you actually want, though it is ofc not perfect.

    • dingnutsan hour ago
      [dead]
  • paxys2 hours ago
    Crazy to think that Github Copilot was the first mainstream AI coding tool. It had all the hype and momentum in the world, and Microsoft decided to do...absolutely nothing with it.
    • leoedinan hour ago
      I use Copilot in VSCode at work, and it's pretty effective. You can choose from quite a few models, and it has the agentic editing you'd expect from an IDE based AI development tool. I don't know if it does things like browser integration because I don't do frontend work. It's definitely improved over the last 6 months.

      There's also all the other Copilot branded stuff which has varying use. The web based chat is OK, but I'm not sure which model powers it. Whatever it is it can be very verbose and doesn't handle images very well. The Office stuff seems to be completely useless so far.

    • 0xbadcafebee29 minutes ago
      They launched GitHub Codespaces, a free containerized dev environment with VScode & Copilot, and it's broken six ways from Sunday. VScode/Copilot extensions are constantly breaking and changing. The GitHub web interface is now much harder to use, to the point I've just stopped browsing it. Nobody over there cares if these things work. (But weirdly, the Copilot CLI works 4x better than the Copilot VSCode extension at actually writing code)
    • eloisantan hour ago
      It was kinda cool for a demo, but Claude Code really was the first game changer in AI coding.
    • ecshafer2 hours ago
      Microsoft is still Microsoft.
    • llm_nerd2 hours ago
      Did it have all the hype and momentum, though? It was pretty widely viewed as a low- to negative-value addition, and honestly when I see someone on here talking about how useless AI is for coding, I assume they were tainted by Github copilot and never bothered updating their priors.
      • freedomben2 hours ago
        just my experience of course, but it had a lot of hype. It got into a lot of people's workflow and really had a strong first mover advantage. The fact that they supported neovim as a first-class editor surely helped a ton. But then they released their next set of features without neovim support and only (IIRC) support VS Code. That took a lot of wind out of the sails. Then combined with them for some reason being on older models (or with thinking turned down or whatever), the results got less and less useful. If Co-pilot had made their agent stuff work with neovim and with a CLI, I think they'd be the clear leader.
  • softwaredoug2 hours ago
    It really says something that MS/Github has been trying to shovel Copilot down our throats for years, and Anthropic just builds a tool in a short period of time and it takes off.

    It's interesting to think back, what did Copilot do wrong? Why didn't it become Claude Code?

    It seems for one thing its ambition might have been too small. Second, it was tightly coupled to VS Code / Github. Third, a lot of dumb big org Microsoft politics / stakeholders overly focused on enterprise over developers? But what else?

    • falloutx3 minutes ago
      Microsoft can just get one of thier devs to build a coding agent but instead all of these companies are just bowing down to Anthropic just because Anthropic is selling execs a dream situation where they can fire most of the devs. None of the other coding agents are any worse than CC, Gemini & Crush are even better, Codex is decent and even something like Opencode is catching up.
    • moregristan hour ago
      I think the answer is pretty simple.

      It's pretty clear that Microsoft had "Everything must have Copilot" dictated from the top (or pretty close). They wanted to be all-in on AI but didn't start with any actual problems to solve. If you're an SWE or a PM or whatever and suddenly your employment/promotion/etc prospects depend on a conspicuously implemented Copilot thing, you do the best you can and implement a chat bot (and other shit) that no one asked for or wants.

      I don't know Anthropic's process but it produced a tool that clearly solves a specific problem: essentially write code faster. I would guess that the solution grew organically given that the UI isn't remotely close to what you'd expect a product manager to want. We don't know how many internal false-starts there were or how many people were working on other solutions to this problem, but what emerged clearly solved that problem, and can generalize to other problems.

      In other words, Microsoft seems to have focused on a technology buzzword. Anthropic let people solve their own problems and it led to an actual product. The kind that people want. The difference is like night and day.

      Who knows what else might have happened in the last 12 months if C-suites were focused more on telling SWEs to be productive and less on forcing specific technology buzzwords because they were told it's the future.

    • firemeltan hour ago
      because claude code do it fullstack u know, the model and implementation, the interation is seamless,

      meanwhile ms and github, is waiting for any breadcrumb that chatgpt leave with

      • adastra22an hour ago
        So is GitHub copilot. They run their own models.
  • torginus11 minutes ago
    To this day I cannot wrap my head around the fact why did Microsoft allow a culture to grow inside the company (either through hiring, or through despondence) that at best is indifferent towards the company's products and at worst openly despises them?

    I'm sure no other tech company is like this.

    I think technologies like the Windows kernel and OS, the .NET framework, their numerous attempts to build a modern desktop UI framework with XAML, their dev tools, were fundamentally good at some point.

    Yet they cant or wont hire people who would fix Windows, rather than just maintain it, really push for modernization, make .NET actually cool and something people want to use.

    They'd rather hire folks who were taught at school that Microsoft is the devil and Linux is superior in all ways, who don't know the first thing about the MS tech stack, and would rather write React on the Macbooks (see the start menu incident), rather than touch anything made by Microsoft.

    It seems somehow the internal culture allows this. I'm sure if you forced devs to use Copilot, and provided them with the tools and organizational mandate to do so, it would become good enough eventually to not have to force people to use it.

    My main complaint I keep hearing about Azure (which I do not use at workr)

    • falloutxa minute ago
      Because they are products have become terrible, and they keep using more AI to solve it when AI is the problem with Microsoft. Microsoft execs are only riding Azure success, rest of the orgs are completely useless.
  • phito5 hours ago
    Well yeah, it is just better. At my work we have a copilot license, but we use it to access Claude Sonnet/Opus model in OpenCode.
    • azaras5 hours ago
      The Copilot-Cli is not so bad,

      https://github.com/features/copilot/cli

      • hpdigidrifter4 hours ago
        Can't speak for copilot but Gemini cli is unbelievably bad compared to Gemini web.

        CC has some magic secret sauce and I'm not sure what it is.

        My company pays for both too, I keep coming back to Claude all-round

        • michaelcampbell30 minutes ago
          I would love to hear/see a definitive answer for this, but I read somewhere that the relationship between MS and \A is such that the copilot version of the \A models has a smaller context window than through CC.

          This would explain the "secret sauce", if it's true. But perhaps it's not and a lot is LLM nondeterminism mixing with human confirmation bias.

        • mcintyre19944 hours ago
          Claude Code is one of a very few AI tools where I genuinely think the people at the company who build it use it all the time.
          • giancarlostoro2 hours ago
            They absolutely do, the CEO has come out and said a few engineers have told him that they dont even write code by hand anymore. To some people that sounds horrifying, but a good engineer would not just take code blindly, they would read it and refine it using Claude, while still saving hundreds of man hours.
          • taude2 hours ago
            watch the interviews with Boris. He absolutely uses it to build CC.
          • vdm2 hours ago
            s/AI//
      • taude2 hours ago
        Agreed. I was an early adopter of Claude Code. And at work we only had Copilot. But the Copilit CLI isn't too bad now. you've got slash commands for Agents.MD and skills.md files now for controlling your context, and access to Sonnet & Opus 4.5.

        Maybe Microsoft is just using it internally, to finish copying the rest of the features from Claude Code.

        Much like the article states, I use Claude Code beyond just it's coding capabilities....

      • tveita2 hours ago
        The Copilot IntelliJ integration on the other hand is atrocious: https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/17718-github-copilot--y...

        I'm amazed that a company that's supposedly one of the big AI stocks seemingly won't spare a single QA position for a major development tool. It really validates Claude's CLI-first approach.

      • k__4 hours ago
        It's sluggish in GitHub Codespaces, as it has so many animations.
    • lifetimerubyist2 hours ago
      [dead]
  • gloomyday13 minutes ago
    Microsoft products are decreasing in quality at an astounding rate. You can clearly see that sales people took over the whole company.
  • jonathanoliver2 hours ago
    Kinda reminds of the time Microsoft used git internally but was pushing Team Foundation Server.
    • pluralmonad4 minutes ago
      There is an entire generation of devs that TFS ruined for version control. I've had to essentially rehabilitate folks and heal old TFS wounds to get them properly using git (so many copies of repos on their filesystem...).
  • fastThinking5 hours ago
    So Copilot is for customers, Claude is for getting actual work done?
    • monocularvision2 hours ago
      Copilot in the streets, Claude in the sheets.
    • k__4 hours ago
      Copilot isn't a model, you can use Claude via Copilot.
      • taude2 hours ago
        Both use the same models. But Claude Code has something special that Microsoft doesn't have in Github Copilot CLI.
      • theanonymousonean hour ago
        Neither is Copilot. The title explicitly mentions Claude "Code".
      • cush2 hours ago
        I don’t think that’s what they were insinuating. Claude Code internally, Copilot for customers.
      • thesdev2 hours ago
        Copilot is anything you want it to be inside Microsoft. Heck even Office is Copilot nowadays.
  • dataviz10005 hours ago
    I installed Claude Code yesterday after the quality of VSCode Copilot Chat continuously is getting worse every release. I can't tell yet if Claude Code is better or not but VSCode Copilot Chat has become completely unusable. It would start making mistakes which would double the requests to Claude Opus 4.5 which in January is the only model that would work at all. I spent $400 in tokens in January.

    I'll know better in a week. Hopefully I can get better results with the $200 a month plan.

    • zzbzq2 hours ago
      Not my experience at all. Copilot launched as a useless code complete, is now basically the same as anything. It's all converging. The features are converging, but the features barely matter anyway when Opus is just doing all the heavy lifting anyway. It just 1-shots half the stuff. Copilot's payment model where you pay by the prompt not by the token is highly abusable, no way this lasts.
      • dktp2 hours ago
        I would agree. I've been using VSCode Copilot for the past (nearly) year. And it has gotten significantly better. I also use CC and Antigravity privately - and got access to Cursor (on top of VSCode) at work a month ago

        CC is, imo, the best. The rest are largely on pair with each other. The benefit of VSCode and Antigravity is that they have the most generous limits. I ran through Cursor $20 limits in 3 days, where same tier VSCode subscription can last me 2+ weeks

    • oefrha4 hours ago
      Claude Code’s subscription pricing is pretty ridiculously subsidized compared to their API pricing if you manage to use anywhere close to the quota. Like 10x I think. Crazy value if you were using $400 in tokens.
      • dataviz10004 hours ago
        I just upgraded to the $100 a month 5x plan 5 minutes ago.

        Starting in October with Vscode Copilot Chat it was $150, $200, $300, $400 per month with the same usage. I thought they were just charging more per request without warning. The last couple weeks it seemed that vscode copilot was just fucking up making useless calls.

        Perhaps, it wasn't a dark malicious pattern but rather incompetence that was driving up the price.

        • joncrane3 minutes ago
          "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence"
    • cush2 hours ago
      What were you spending on Copilot?
  • TZubiri5 minutes ago
    Friendship ended with OpenAI, Now Anthropic is my best friend
  • kcb4 hours ago
    And probably running on their macbooks...
    • GaProgMan3 hours ago
      True story: a lot of the Microsoft engineers I interact with actually do use Apple hardware. Admittedly, I onto interact with the devs on the .NET (and related technologies) departments.

      Specifically WHY they use Apple hardware is something I can only speculate on. Presumably it's easier to launch Windows on Mac than the other way around, and they would likely need to do that as .NET and its related technologies are cross platform as of 2016. But that's a complete guess on my part.

      Am *NOT* a Microsoft employee, just an MVP for Developer Technnolgies.

      • arcologies19853 hours ago
        Probably because "Windows Modern Standby" makes laptops unusable by turning them on in your backpack and cooking them.

        https://youtu.be/OHKKcd3sx2c

        • m-schuetz2 hours ago
          I still don't understand how Microsoft lets standby remain broken. I can never leave the PC in my bedroom ij standby because it will randomly wake up and blast the coolers.
          • cosmic_cheese2 hours ago
            Probably because the quality of PC BIOS/firmware is generally abysmal and getting vendors to follow spec is like herding cats.
            • Nextgrid41 minutes ago
              S3 sleep was a solved problem until Microsoft decided that your laptop must download ads^Wsuggestions in the background and deprecated it. On firmwares still supporting S3, it works perfectly.
            • mrweaselan hour ago
              Sadly even if Microsoft had a few lineups of laptops that they'd use internally and recommend, companies would still get the shitty ones, if it saves them $10 per device.
        • taude2 hours ago
          Haa, amazing. I had this happen to TWO Dell XPS for me, before finally switching over to Mac.
        • kibwen2 hours ago
          To be fair, this was also my experience with Macbooks. This "smart sleep" from modern OS manufacturers is the dumbest shit ever, please just give me a hibernate option.
          • einsteinx2an hour ago
            I had the issue with Intel MacBooks but never once with any M-series model.
          • cosmic_cheese2 hours ago
            I used to have trouble with sleep on M-series macs on occasion, but after turning off wake on LAN they’ve all slept exactly as expected for the past several years.
      • Nextgrid37 minutes ago
        > WHY they use Apple hardware

        Because Windows' UX is trash? Anyone with leverage over their employer can and should request a Mac. And in a hot market, developers/designers did have that leverage (maybe they still do) and so did get their Macs as requested.

        Only office drones who don't have the leverage to ask for anything better or don't know something better exists are stuck with Windows. Everyone else will go Mac or Linux.

        Which is why you see Windows becoming so shit, because none of the culprits actually use it day-to-day. Microsoft should've enforced a hard rule about dogfooding their own product back in the Windows 7 days when the OS was still usable. I'm not sure they could get away with it now without a massive revolt and/or productivity stopping dead in its tracks.

      • khkjhkjiug2 hours ago
        100% true story - until a couple of months ago, the best place to talk directly to Microsoft senior devs was on the macadmins slack. Loads of them there. They would regularly post updates, talk to people about issues, discuss solutions, even happy to engage in DMS. All posting using their real names.

        The accounts have now all gone quiet, guess they got told to quit it.

      • epolanski2 hours ago
        One of my friends is a program manager in MS, I think he requested a Macbook but was denied, was given a Surface instead.

        He didn't dislike it, but got himself a Macbook nonetheless at his cost.

      • koakuma-chan2 hours ago
        You're an MVP? Minimum viable product? Most valuable player?
        • stoobsan hour ago
          These days it could also be Most vaunted prompt
  • veryfancyan hour ago
    GitHub Copilot with Opus 4.5 as the model is great. I have not tried Claude Code, so maybe I don’t know what I’m missing.
    • smithkl42an hour ago
      I'm one of those really odd beasts that feels some sort of loyalty to Microsoft, so I started out on Copilot and was very reluctant to try Claude Code. But as soon as I did, I figured out what the hype was about. It's just able to work over larger code bases and over longer time horizons than Copilot. The last time I tried Copilot, just to compare, I noticed that it would make some number of tool calls (not even involving tokens!) and then decide, "Nah, that's too many. We're just not going to do any work for a while." It was bizarre. And sometimes it would decide that a given bog-standard tool call (like read a file or something) needed to get my permission every. single. time. I couldn't do anything to convince it otherwise. I eventually gave up. And since then, we've built all our LLM support infrastructure around Claude Code, so it would be painful to go back to anything else.
  • wahnfrieden9 minutes ago
    Reading about ubiquitous Claude Code use inside of Apple and Microsoft, and not Codex, makes me very worried about forthcoming software quality.

    Claude Code is fun, full of personality, many features to hack around model shortcomings, and very quick, but it should not be let anywhere near serious coding work.

  • pjmlp4 hours ago
    That isn't going well for Satya.
    • wolvoleo2 hours ago
      Indeed it's not: https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/01/09/is-microsoft-losing... And: https://www.perspectives.plus/p/microsoft-365-copilot-commer...

      Tldr: Copilot has 1% marketshare among web chatbots and 1.85% of paid M365 users bought a subscription to it.

      As much as I think AI is overrated already, Copilot is pretty much the worst performing one out there from the big tech companies. Despite all the Copilot buttons in office, windows, on keyboards and even on the physical front of computers now.

      We have to use it at work but it just feels like if they spent half the effort they spend on marketing on actually trying to make it do its job people might actually want to use it.

      Half the time it's not even doing anything. "Please try again later" or the standard error message Microsoft uses for every possible error now: "Something went wrong". Another pet peeve of mine, those useless error messages.

      • pjmlp2 hours ago
        Yeah, my problem the way it has been pushed is that how it doesn't make sense at all.

        Improve the workflows that would benefit "AI" algorithms, image recognition, voice control, hand writing, code completion, and so on.

        No need to put buttons to chat windows all over the place.

      • tomjen324 minutes ago
        They put it into the Azure portal, and I tried to get it to answer me what the open resource cost us in storage. It appeared retarded at first, but then I realized it didn't have access to know what I had opened or anything.

        Until MS makes sure their models get the necessary context, I don't even care to click on them.

  • ChrisArchitectan hour ago
    2 week old post feeling like part of the other weirdly promotional "Claude is everywhere right now" pieces that were around. Someone called it an advertising carpet bombing run.

    A.I. Tool Is Going Viral. Five Ways People Are Using It

    https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/technology/claude-code.ht...

    Claude Is Taking the AI World by Storm, and Even Non-Nerds Are Blown Away

    https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/anthropic-claude-code-ai-7a46460...

  • EMM_386an hour ago
    What are we discussing here?

    The tools or the models? It's getting absurdly confusing.

    "Claude Code" is an interface to Claude, Cursor is an IDE (I think?! VS Code fork?), GitHub Copilot is a CLI or VS Code plugin to use with ... Claude, or GPT models, or ...

    If they are using "Claude Code" that means they are using Anthropic's models - which is interesting given their huge investment in OpenAI.

    But this is getting silly. People think "CoPilot" is "Microsoft's AI" which it isn't. They have OpenAI on Azure. Does Microsoft even have a fine-tuned GPT model or are they just prompting an OpenAI model for their Windows-builtins?

    When you say you use CoPilot with Claude Opus people get confused. But this is what I do everyday at work.

    shrug

  • dude2507115 hours ago
    We can certainly see, every Windows update requires flipping a coin now.
  • moi23882 hours ago
    “ Microsoft told me last year that 91 percent of its engineering teams use GitHub Copilot”

    Well, that might explain why all their products are unusable lately.

    • Supermancho20 minutes ago
      They have been unstable for decades. Does anyone still use self-hosted (running in a basement) windows servers? Running a windows machine feels like it's about as reliable as fast food order accuracy. Most of the time sure, but I hope you can afford to miss out sometimes.
  • oefrha4 hours ago
    I try GitHub Copilot every once in a while, and just last month it still managed to produce diffs with unbalanced curly braces, or tried to insert (what should be) a top-level function into the middle of another function and screw up everything. This wasn’t on a free model like GPT 4.1 or 5-mini, IIRC it was 5.2 Codex. What the actual fuck? Only explanation I can come up with is that their pay-per-request model made GHC really stingy with using tokens for context, even when you explicitly ask it to read certain files it ends up grepping and adding a couple lines.
    • zzbzq2 hours ago
      You're not using the good models and then blaming the tool? Just use claude models.

      Copilot's main problem seems to be people don't know how to use it. They need to delete all their plugins except the vscode, CLI ones, and disable all models except anthropic ones.

      The Claude Code reputation diff is greatly exaggerated beyond that.

      • oefrha2 hours ago
        What, 5.2 Codex isn’t a good model? Claude 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro with Copilot aren’t any better, I don’t have enough of a sample of Opus 4.5 usage with Copilot to say with confidence how it fares since they charge 3x for Opus 4.5 compared to everything else.

        If Copilot is stupid uniquely with 5.2 Codex then they should disable that instead of blaming the user (I know they aren’t, you are). But that’s not the case, it’s noticeably worse with everything. Compared to both Cursor and Claude Code.

      • howdareme921 minutes ago
        5.2 Codex is up there with claude lmao
  • fragmede4 hours ago
    32 comments and no mention of codex or windsurf or cursor.
    • make32 hours ago
      have people tried Antigravity
  • bakugo4 hours ago
    Explains why Windows updates have been more broken than usual lately.

    But I guess having my computer randomly stop working because a billion dollar corporation needs to save money by using a shitty text generation algorithm to write code instead of hiring competent programmers is just the new normal now.

    • wcoenen4 hours ago
      Do you have "Get the latest updates as soon as they're available" enabled? This automatically installs preview releases, so you may unwittingly be doing QA for Microsoft.
    • johnebgd4 hours ago
      I switched to Ubuntu last week for my desktop. First time in my 25+ year career I’ve felt like Microsoft was wasting my time more than administering a Linux desktop would take. The slop effect is real.
      • newsoftheday13 minutes ago
        I've used Kubuntu for several years, wife too now which is an official, supported flavor of Ubuntu using KDE desktop instead of Gnome. It gives a more Windows like or CDE (Common Desktop Environment - from UNIX systems) feel than Gnome which gives a more Mac feel.
      • unlimit4 hours ago
        You won't regret. I have been using debian for last 25 years on and off and for last 8 years non stop. I have no complains.
        • vv_3 hours ago
          Unfortunately it'll take time for certain companies to release their applications on Linux distro's. So right now I manage with WSL2 + Win 11.
      • pjmlp4 hours ago
        You might want to change to Debian or some other distro more radical.

        https://ubuntu.com/ai

        • eklavya4 hours ago
          I am not getting what that linked url is supposed to mean. It is a very decent business page where ubuntu is selling consulting for "your" projects and telling why ubuntu is great for developing AI systems.
          • pjmlp4 hours ago
            And eventually on Ubuntu itself, who knows.
      • Eddy_Viscosity24 hours ago
        Linux kernels will all eventually be permeated with AI-gen code as well. It will just take longer to see and feel the effects.
        • calgoo4 hours ago
          I'm sure there are a bunch of "Rust is better" people spending all their tokens on rewriting the Linux kernel as we speak.
        • bflesch4 hours ago
          Your argument is in bad faith because you are using false equivalence bias.
          • Eddy_Viscosity24 hours ago
            I wasn't making an argument. It was a prediction that all major software, (including the major linux distros) will eventually be majority (>50%) AI generated. Software that is 100% human generated will be like getting a hand knitted sweater at a farmers market. Available, but expensive and only produced at very small scale.
            • vv_3 hours ago
              On what reasoning do you make this prediction? Just because corporations are mandating their employees to use AI right now does not mean it will continue.
              • Eddy_Viscosity22 hours ago
                Any new software developers entering the field from this point on will have to know how to use and be expected to use AI code-gen tools to get employment. Moving forward, eventually all developers use these tools routinely. There will be a point in the future where there is no one left working that has ever coded anything complex thing from scratch without AI tools. Therefore, all* code will have AI code-gen as all* developers will be using them.

                * all mean 'nearly all' as of course there will be exceptions.

  • firemelt2 hours ago
    so whats the point of billions dollar investment to chatgpt lmao nadella
  • lloydatkinson5 hours ago
    I have found that Claude Code is better in every way I've used it. I like to use LLM's just as an advanced refactoring tool, especially where plain string search isn't enough. Anyway, my first experience of Copilot was it plainly lying that it deleted files I asked it to, and it insisted the file no longer existed (it did).

    The difference between the two is stark.

    • blibble4 hours ago
      "my turds now contains 15% candyfloss!"
  • newzinoan hour ago
    [dead]
  • onion2k5 hours ago
    Microsoft have a goal that states they want to get to "1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code." You can't do that if you write the code yourself. That means they'll always be chasing the best model. Right now, that's Opus 4.5.
    • jodrellblank3 hours ago
      > "Microsoft have a goal that states they want to get to "1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code.""

      No, one researcher at Microsoft made a personal LinkedIn post that his team were using that as their 'North Star' for porting and transpiling existing C and C++ code, not writing new code, and when the internet hallucinated that he meant Windows and this meant new code, and started copypasting this as "Microsoft's goal", the post was edited and Microsoft said it isn't the company's goal.

      • rkozik19892 hours ago
        That's still writing new code. Also, its kind of an extremely bad idea to do that because how are you going to test it? If you have to rewrite anything (hint: you probably don't) its best to do it incrementally over time because of the QA and stakeholder alignment overhead. You cannot push things into production unless it works as its users are expecting and it does exactly what stakeholders expect as well.
        • kavalg2 hours ago
          If it is Windows, then you and I are going to test it :)
        • ethin2 hours ago
          No no, your talking common sense and logic. You can't think like that. You have to think "How do I rush out as much code as possible?" After all, this is MS we're talking about, and Windows 11 is totally the shining example of amazing and completely stable code. /s
      • giancarlostoro2 hours ago
        Porting legacy code is definitely one of its strengths. It can even... do wilder things if you're creative enough.
    • smoe4 hours ago
      It is kind of funny that throughout my career, there has always been pretty much a consensus that lines of code are a bad metric, but now with all the AI hype, suddenly everybody is again like “Look at all the lines of code it writes!!”

      I use LLMs all day every day, but measuring someone or something by the number of lines of code produced is still incredibly stupid, in my opinion.

      • reactordev4 hours ago
        Microsoft never got that memo. They still measure LoC because it’s all MBAs.
        • walt_grata3 hours ago
          Fuck is there a way to have that degree and not be clueless and toxic to your colleagues and users.
          • bluGill2 hours ago
            It all comes from "if you can't measure it you can't improve it". The job of management is to improve things, and that means they need to measure it and in turn look for measures. When working on an assembly line there are lots of things to measure and improve, and improving many of those things have shown great value.

            They want to expand that value into engineering and so are looking for something they can measure. I haven't seen anyone answer what can be measured to make a useful improvement though. I have a good "feeling" that some people I work with are better than others, but most are not so bad that we should fire them - but I don't know how to put that into something objective.

            • mwigdahl2 hours ago
              Yes, the problem of accurately measuring software "productivity" has stymied the entire industry for decades, but people keep trying. It's conceivable that you might be able to get some sort of more-usable metric out of some systematized AI analysis of code changes, which would be pretty ironic.
          • chillfox2 hours ago
            All evidence continues to point towards NO.
          • groundzeros20152 hours ago
            They seem better at working in finance and managing money.

            Most models of productivity look like factories with inputs, outputs, and processes. This is just not how engineering or craftsmanship happen.

          • heliumtera2 hours ago
            No man, it's in the title, master bullshit artist
        • Findecanor2 hours ago
          If so, it hasn't always been that way. Steve Ballmer on IBM and KLoC's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHI7RTKhlz0

          (I think it is from "Triumph of the Nerds" (1996), but I can't find the time code)

      • austinthetaco2 hours ago
        I believe the "look at all the lines of code" argument for LLMs is not a way to showcase intelligence, but more-so a way to showcase time saved. Under the guise that the output is the/a correct solution, it's a way to say "look at all the code I would have had to write, it saved so much time".
        • SoftTalker2 hours ago
          The line of code that saves the most time is the one you don't write.
          • stoneforger2 hours ago
            Reason went out of fashion like 50 years ago, and it was never really in vogue.
      • randusername2 hours ago
        > measuring someone or something by the number of lines of code produced is still incredibly stupid, in my opinion.

        Totally agree. I see LOC as a liability metric. It amazes me that so many other people see it as an asset metric.

      • jayd162 hours ago
        I think the charitable way to read the quote is that 1M LOC are to be converted, not written.
      • torginus2 hours ago
        Yeah. I honestly feel 1m LOC is enough to recreate a fully featured complete modern computing environment if one goes about it sensibly.
      • make32 hours ago
        it's still a bad metric and OP is also just being loose by repeating some marketing / LinkedIn post by a person who uses bad metrics about an overhyped subject
      • martinflack3 hours ago
        Ironically, AI may help get past that. In order to measure "value chunks" or some other metric where LoC is flexibly multiplied by some factor of feature accomplishment, quality, and/or architectural importance, an opinion of the section in question is needed, and an overseer AI could maybe do that.
    • bondarchuk5 hours ago
      https://devblogs.microsoft.com/engineering-at-microsoft/welc...

      "Microsoft has over 100,000 software engineers working on software projects of all sizes."

      So that would mean 100 000 000 000 (100 billion) lines of code per month. Frightening.

      • clickety_clack4 hours ago
        With those kinds of numbers you don’t need logic anymore, just a lookup table with all possible states of the system.
      • kace914 hours ago
        Absurd. The Linux kernel is 30 million, Postgres is 2, windows is assumed to be about 50.
        • conartist64 hours ago
          No, no. 100 trillion lines of code per day is great! The only thing better would be 200 trillion ;)
          • Eddy_Viscosity24 hours ago
            CEO: I want big numbers of things. Big numbers = success.
        • oleganza4 hours ago
          Maybe it means "LOCs changed"?
          • mjevans4 hours ago
            Mutate things so fast cancer looks like stable.
          • wolvoleo2 hours ago
            Copilot add a space to every line of code in this repository and commit please.

            One of the many reasons why it's such a bad practice (overly verbose solutions id another one of course)

      • root_axis4 hours ago
        More likely those 100k engineers would shrink to 10k.
        • sarchertech4 hours ago
          Thats still 10 billion lines of code per month if that insane metric were a real goal (it’s not).

          That’s 200 Windows’ worth of code every month.

          • root_axis2 hours ago
            Totally agreed. The numbers are silly. My only point is that you don't need 100k engineers if you're letting Claude dump all that code into production.
          • amarant3 hours ago
            Guess Windows 12 is gonna be a bit on the bloated side, Huh?
      • torginus2 hours ago
        So the recent surge in demand for storage is to because we have to store that code somewhere?
      • FergusArgyll4 hours ago
        Maybe they can use 5 - 10 loc to move the classic window shell button so it's not on top of the widgets button
    • javawizard4 hours ago
      I used to work at a place that had the famous Antoine de Saint-Exupéry quote painted near the elevators where everyone would see it when they arrived for work:

        Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
      
      I miss those days.
      • bookofjoe2 hours ago
        Original French: "Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher".
        • rkomorn2 hours ago
          "Il semble" sure gives the quote a different tone to me.
    • esafak30 minutes ago
      No-one can read tens of thousands of lines of code every day, so the code would only be superficially reviewed; spot checked.
    • m4rtink4 hours ago
      Cool - I was thinking it would be good for them to implode as a company due all the extra harmfull stuff they are doing with Windows recently.

      Generating bilions of lines of code that is unmaintainable and buggy should easily achieve that. ;-)

    • sarchertech4 hours ago
      Looks like the guy who posted that updated his post to say he was just talking about a research project he is working on.
      • anonymous9082134 hours ago
        Which is a bald-faced lie written in response to a PR disaster. The original claims were not ambiguous:

        > My goal is to eliminate every line of C and C++ from Microsoft by 2030. Our strategy is to combine AI and Algorithms to rewrite Microsoft’s largest codebases. Our North Star is “1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code”.

        Obviously, "every line of C and C++ from Microsoft" is not contained within a single research project, nor are "Microsoft's largest codebases".

        • jodrellblank3 hours ago
          The original claims were not ambigious, it's "My" goal not "Microsoft's goal".

          The fact that it's a "PR disaster" for a researcher to have an ambitious project at one of the biggest tech companies on the planet, or to talk up their team on LinkedIn, is unbelievably ridiculous.

          • anonymous9082132 hours ago
            One supposes, when a highly senior employee publicly talks about project goals in recruitment material, that they are not fancifully daydreaming about something that can never happen but are in fact actually talking about the work they're doing that justifies their ~$1,000,000/yr compensation in the eyes of their employer.

            Talking about rewriting Windows at a rate of 1 million lines of code per engineer per month with LLMs is absolutely going to garner negative publicity, no matter how much you spin it with words like "ambitious" (do you work in PR? it sounds like it's your calling).

            • jodrellblank2 hours ago
              You suppose that there are no highly-paid researchers on the planet working on AGI? Because there are, and that's less proven than "porting one codebase to another language" is. What about Quantum Computers, what about power-producing nuclear fusion? Both less proven than porting code. What about all other blue-sky research labs?

              Why would you continue supposing such a thing when both the employee, and the employer, have said that your suppositions are wrong?

              • anonymous9082132 hours ago
                Sure, there are plenty of researchers working on fanciful daydreams. They pursue those goals at behest of their employer. You attempted to make a distinction between the employer and the employee's goals, as though a Distinguished Engineer at Microsoft was just playing around on a whim doing hobby projects for fun. If Microsoft is paying him $1m annually to work on this, plus giving him a team to pursue the goal of rewriting Windows, it is not inaccurate to state that Microsoft's goal is to completely rewrite Windows with LLMs, and they will earn negative publicity for making that fact public. The project will likely fail given how ridiculous it is, but it is still a goal they are funding.
        • coldtea3 hours ago
          The authentic quote “1 engineer, 1 month, 1 million lines of code” as some kind of goal that makes sense, even just for porting/rewriting, is embarassing enough from an OS vendor.

          As @mrbungie says on this thread: "They took the stupidest metric ever and made a moronic target out of it"

        • sarchertech4 hours ago
          I mean 100% that was his goal. But that was one guy without the power to set company wide goals talking on LinkedIn.

          The fact that there are distinguished engineers at MS who think that is a reasonable goal is frightening though.

    • wolvoleo2 hours ago
      Wow such bad practice, using lines of code as a performance metric has been shown to be really bad practice decades ago. For a software company to do this now...
    • richsouth2 hours ago
      Because as we all know, lines of code == quality of code.
      • funkyfiddler3692 hours ago
        I mean, if 1% out of 8 billion is "top" and that applies to Lines of Code, too, than ... more code contains more quality, ... by their logic, I guess ...
        • philipwhiuk2 hours ago
          What if the % declines proportionally (or worse) to the growth in code.
          • funkyfiddler36941 minutes ago
            it might, but not if you isolate/repurpose that % (over time), which is the promise
    • the_duke4 hours ago
      Do you have a source for that?
    • WD-422 hours ago
      This has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard from microslop this morning. It’s like they are forgetting to be a real software company.
    • nrawe5 hours ago
      I've not heard that goal before. If true, it makes me sad to hear that once again, people confuse "More LOC == More Customer Value == More Profit". Sigh.
      • spwa42 hours ago
        I've written a C recompiler in an attempt to build homomorphic encryption. It doesn't work (it's not correct) but it can translate 5 lines of working code in 100.000 lines of almost-working code.

        Any MBAs want to buy? For the right price I could even fix it ...

    • ReptileMan3 hours ago
      Is 1 million bugs stated implicitly or explicitly?
    • heliumtera2 hours ago
      Microsoft went from somewhat good in Windows 7 to absolute dog shit in approximately 10 years.

      So with this level of productivity Windows could completely degrade itself and collapse in one week instead of 15 years.

    • badgersnake4 hours ago
      We’re back to measuring productivity by lines of code are we? Because that always goes well.
    • HumblyTossed3 hours ago
      Yay another stupid metric to game!

      This will lead to so much enshitification.

    • mrbungie4 hours ago
      They took the stupidest metric ever and made a moronic target out of it.
      • reactordev4 hours ago
        That’s what MBAs do
        • brookst2 hours ago
          Wasn’t this one single researcher?
    • copilot_king_25 hours ago
      > “My goal is to eliminate every line of C and C++ from Microsoft by 2030,” Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Galen Hunt writes in a post on LinkedIn. “Our strategy is to combine AI and Algorithms to rewrite Microsoft’s largest codebases.

      they're fucked