One particularly nasty example is when a dev “deleted Copilot’s generated English commit message and manually wrote [their] own commit message instead. However, after the commit was created, the final Git history still contained the Copilot co-author line.”
While I can see an argument that using it in development should see your code marked as AI-assisted, it wouldn’t even hold in this case: “Copilot only generated a commit message suggestion; it did not author the code”, and even that suggestion was rejected in favour of manual work.
It sneakily messed with the commit, not just without explicit consent but despite the user’s explicit dissent. That’s not even an opt-in/opt-out discussion at that point, if you don’t get an option.
Now I wonder whether that could happen even if you don’t have Copilot at all (or rather no license, no matter how much the AI-postles at work have been trying to sell me one). Intuitively, it shouldn’t, but who knows…
One particularly nasty example is when a dev “deleted Copilot’s generated English commit message and manually wrote [their] own commit message instead. However, after the commit was created, the final Git history still contained the Copilot co-author line.”
While I can see an argument that using it in development should see your code marked as AI-assisted, it wouldn’t even hold in this case: “Copilot only generated a commit message suggestion; it did not author the code”, and even that suggestion was rejected in favour of manual work.
It sneakily messed with the commit, not just without explicit consent but despite the user’s explicit dissent. That’s not even an opt-in/opt-out discussion at that point, if you don’t get an option.
Now I wonder whether that could happen even if you don’t have Copilot at all (or rather no license, no matter how much the AI-postles at work have been trying to sell me one). Intuitively, it shouldn’t, but who knows…