Among the software developers who use Microsoft’s GitHub, the most popular community discussion in the past 12 months has been a request for a way to block Copilot, the company’s AI service, from generating issues and pull requests in code repositories.

The second most popular discussion – where popularity is measured in upvotes – is a bug report that seeks a fix for the inability of users to disable Copilot code reviews.

  • Lee Duna@lemmy.nzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    from the comments of the article that got the most upvotes

    Embrace, Extend, Extinguish

    Microsoft’s Copilot push isn’t strategy, it’s the old embrace, extend, extinguish play dressed up in “AI” robes. GitHub was acquired to embrace developers. Copilot is the extend phase: saturating every workflow with unasked-for AI noise, from issues to pull requests to editors. The extinguish part is already visible - trust in GitHub is collapsing, and the very maintainers who underpin Microsoft’s ecosystem are moving to other platforms.

    On earnings calls, this is presented as “momentum”. In reality, it’s forced adoption: a hostile takeover of developer experience. When customers explicitly ask for an off switch and leadership ignores them, that’s not innovation - it’s managerial negligence. Any competent operator knows that coercion isn’t growth, it’s decay.

    GitHub’s competitive advantage was never a Copilot sidebar, it was trust and network effects. Those are finite assets, and they’re being burned for vanity metrics. The result? A platform that once symbolised collaboration now feels like adware, and developers - the same ones whose code powers Azure and every Microsoft AI demo - are signalling they’re done.

    Shareholders should be asking a simple question: what is the long-term value of poisoning the well you drink from? Copilot may inflate short-term KPIs, but the cost is strategic: erosion of goodwill, flight of open-source projects, and reputational damage that no amount of AI rebranding can fix.

    I agree with the first paragraph, this is just another M$ EEE. Utilizing source codes on github to train their AI to be smarter in coding. So they can promote vibe coding to people with a little or no experience in coding.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 hours ago

      This is not what Embrace, Extend, Extinguish is. Embrace, maybe, sure. The Extend part is functionality that is critical or that people want to use. This isn’t that. (And then Extinguish is to use the Extension to eliminate the open source competition.)

      • rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        The article kind of lines out how they interpret ‘extend’ here, but as you say, it isn’t perfect. Perhaps ‘eeritate’ or ‘egg on’ would fit better. Elbow?

  • gkak.laₛ@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I’m not sure I understand the people in the thread advocating for the feature; they’re asking Microsoft to not have features that are hostile to the users?

    If the managers have decided they don’t want you, and they only want vibe coders and to force AI hype on you, why would you do their job for them and try to persuade them to keep their monopoly…

    Just accept that it’s bad and go somewhere else; 😕 the fact that people are used to using github and that “it’s what everyone uses”, doesn’t mean that people should stay there forever, or that Microsoft would care about the feature requests people make; stop threatening to leave or comparing github to codeberg etc, and just go create a codeberg account and start git pushing there today 🤔 (And maybe keep the github projects but only use them as mirrors for accepting PRs etc)

    (I’m not saying this in a hostile way; but I really think the solution is to just go and do sth else about, it instead of trying to reason with Microsoft)

    • Lee Duna@lemmy.nzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Just accept that it’s bad and go somewhere else;

      before leaving github, it is better for them to ensure that their code on github cannot be used to train AI.

      • Gutek8134@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        How about replacing it with some random mumbling? >:) They don’t care to sanitize their data.

        • rozodru@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 hours ago

          that’s what I did when I moved my stuff to codeberg and my private forgejo instance. I knew deleting the repos on github wasn’t going to do anything, they would likely still have them. so I just pushed a bunch of claude code AI slop into all of them. let Microsoft’s AI gorge itself on the waste from Anthropics. Literally just opened up a Claude Code CLI and had it do a bunch of absolutely dumb crap and when it’d get confused and say “this isn’t right” I would correct it and say “no, NO! you’re completely right! keep going!”

          It was actually kinda fun. like teaching a kid to ride a bike wrong on purpose.

        • Lee Duna@lemmy.nzOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          it might work just don’t delete your github account, since they have another baclup.

          Just keep it and do a few commits a year at least to make sure your code can’t be used.