Every developer (~400) has a Copilot license of which about 50% are actively using it (we'll start pruning licenses next month).

My experience so far is that it's biggest benefit is writing tests and refactoring code. The major downside is that it has a habit of introducing very subtle bugs that are easy to miss even with human review.

Not at all in my org, as far as I know. We are a team of senior engineers somewhat set in our ways and I am not sure how good Copilot plugin for Emacs is.

We are part of a large company and we had a mandate from up top to come up with ways to incorporate AI into our product. We prototyped a few, but could never get it batter than "almost good enough to be useful". Other teams have presented promising prototypes of inhouse AI assistants that we can incorporate into products.

My team pivoted to the inverse: seeing if we can make our product more useful to ML developers.

Probably 60% where those not using it have just been too lazy to set it up. I have a mostly senior crew so I’m not concerned about code reviews or poorly optimized generated code. For most things, the boilerplate that code gen can add is a continuation of things like Intellisense and linting.

What you have to watch out for is complicated logic being built by code gen and not knowing enough about the code generated. For example, I’m very comfortable with fixing the weird ass Rust iterators Copilot will make because I understand Rust iterators. If I had to move to, say, C#, I’d have no fucking clue whether or not the generated code is idiomatic, solves problems in the way a C# would solve problems, or even compiles until I run it.

I work in web and I came from an SRE background. Those industries lend themselves to this quick code gen. If you managed a Terraform codebase for any appreciable cloud presence pre-code gen, you’d understand how much of a boon it is for certain areas. I don’t know how useful it would be in languages or areas that don’t glue a bunch of boilerplate together. HPC, for example, cares a ton about every instruction. At the same time, code gen can give you a pretty good assembly template to improve.

Not at all, by any engineers I know anyway.

Don't know a single person who uses it, neither privately nor professionally. We don't do much boilerplate and write a bunch of stuff that would take longer to describe in a prompt than write itself.

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

Pretty close to hundred percent. Though, I work for Microsoft which is a bit biased.

There's around 10 developers and most use it now.

We have bing enterprise.

I've found that anything that used to be a Google followed by skimming a few blogs or docs is now a question to it.

It summarizes the articles that I was going to read, extracts the specific information I was after and sources each sentence so I can read it if I want to. Also allows follow up questions, which is big.

It has essentially replaced googling for me.

I also use it for refactoring and other tasks like that as well.

The speed at which I can get productive in a new language or framework has greatly increased.

I've also noticed our juniors can get up to speed very fast with minimal input.