Let us git rid of it, angry GitHub users say of forced Copilot features

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Alternatives & Centralization Concerns

  • Multiple commenters say they’re moving or donating to Codeberg, Forgejo, or self‑hosted GitLab; some note GitLab is also pushing AI and expect eventual community forks.
  • Debate over whether GitHub is “critical infrastructure” or just a fancy git server with PRs. Some say outages kneecap companies and act as a CDN; others argue that’s bad engineering practice, not inherent criticality.
  • Strong regret that so much FOSS landed on a proprietary, VC‑funded platform, making the community hostage to a corporate owner; others reply that convenience and network effects made this outcome predictable.
  • GitHub stars, free CI (including macOS/Windows), and packages are seen as major lock‑in mechanisms beyond pure git hosting.

Reality of Copilot PR/Issue Spam

  • Several maintainers of popular projects report seeing zero Copilot‑authored PRs or issues; they suspect the scale of the problem is overstated.
  • Clarification: Copilot does not automatically open PRs/issues; a human has to trigger it. The main GitHub discussion is about blocking the copilot bot account, not banning all AI‑authored content.
  • Others worry about LLM‑generated “sludge” from any tool (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.), especially around events like Hacktoberfest or bounty programs.

Forced AI Features & User Hostility

  • Strong frustration with Copilot being surfaced everywhere: GitHub UI, VS Code, Visual Studio, Office 365, and other products. Many describe it as “forced” or dark‑patterned, with limited or hidden off‑switches.
  • Some report Copilot review comments blocking automerge for trivial remarks, and accounts shown as “enabled” for Copilot even when settings say otherwise; GitHub support is described as evasive.
  • Comparison to other “enshittified” products (Google Docs, GCP console) where core quality stagnates while AI buttons proliferate.

Metrics, Hype, and Business Incentives

  • Skepticism about claims like “20M Copilot users” when access is auto‑provisioned or mandated by management, often unused.
  • Many see the AI push as driven by KPIs, investor expectations, and ecosystem self‑interest (e.g., GPU vendors), not organic developer demand.
  • Parallels drawn to crypto and self‑driving hype cycles and to the McNamara fallacy: chasing engagement numbers while ignoring user experience.

Usefulness vs. Cost of LLMs

  • Some developers report substantial productivity gains for prototyping in unfamiliar languages, exploratory scripts, or navigating large new codebases.
  • Others find LLMs useful mainly as fuzzy search / brainstorming tools, with limited or negative net productivity once review and corrections are included.
  • Environmental and infrastructure costs are raised; critics argue the benefits don’t yet justify the scale or the aggressive rollout.

Control, Policy, and Mitigations

  • Workarounds mentioned: hiding AI features in VS Code (Chat: Hide AI Features), Org‑level Copilot disable in GitHub, Visual Studio “hide Copilot” option, and uBlock filters to block Copilot commit‑message generation.
  • Proposals include blocklists for AI‑slop contributors and allowing maintainers to block the copilot bot like any other user.

Corporate Behavior & Regulation

  • Long thread on why Microsoft was allowed to buy GitHub, whether it was already “critical” at acquisition, and the role of antitrust (compared to Adobe/Figma).
  • Some argue corporations are doing exactly what they’re designed to do—maximize profit—and that only regulation and better initial choices (FOSS forges) could have prevented this dynamic.