[sethammons]

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"

[n2d4]

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.

[tines]

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

[n2d4]

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.

[tines]

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

[n2d4]

Then what do you claim the implied conclusion is?

[Jenk]

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

[krainboltgreene]

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

[MoreQARespect]

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