[Festro]

Copilot is basically just whitelabelled ChatGPT. It's a big ask for people to use it over the source system.

ChatGPT gets the headlines, is seen as an innovator, and costs less.

Copilot offers what? A physical button on a Windows keyboard, OS integration when we're in our browsers 24/7 and Atlas exists?

My main gripe is that if Copilot has any value MS do a piss-poor job of promoting it. I can see AI functions in MS365 being useful, I can see MS-related headaches being solvable quicker with an AI buddy nudging me along to a resolution. But their press releases and and demos, if they exist, do not compete with OpenAI's, Google's, hell Deepseek gets more coverage.

MS might as well give up and pursue integration and compatibility with the rest of the ecosystem. I know they won't though, they'll cut costs and still shove Copilot down our throats with feature creep and useless opt-out bulk.

[RicoElectrico]

For something that is supposedly a "strategic priority" the implementation is half-assed as well. When I edit my prompt post-fact, it is instead sent as a new message.

[lumost]

IMO the wrapper products all suffer from the same problem. The LLM is trained to do a specific set of tasks such as Chat, Coding, Image understanding, and image/video generation, and tool use in support of the above. If you suddenly ask the LLM to do something it was not trained for such as producing power points - you get a few surprisingly successful results, followed by a large set of crap. There is no reason for customers or your own team to expect the underlying model to improve unless token usage is so massive it motivates training investment in this area.

LLMs are a facsimile of general intelligence on tasks similar to their training set and which can be solved in finite context length. If you are outside of the training set - you will have poor results. Likewise if you are in the training set, then the foundation model vendor will already have a great product to sell you (claude code/chatgpt etc.)