I love hand waving polls as a premise for a story, bonus points awarded if they are a twitter poll.
In other news - Nearly half of firms doing nothing about ChatGPT use.
In other news - Nearly half of firms doing nothing about ChatGPT use.
It’s absolutely the right thing to consider, just as social media rose organizations drafter social media policies.
And before you object, break your hands and try to live with speech recognition as it stands today. Then you will grab onto things like copilot as a lifesaver.
It's the same rhetoric they use to try to push for backdoor in OSes, messaging services, &c. "but what about the pedophiles, think of the children!"
That is a LOT to ask me to do before objecting. I'm pretty good at imagination, so I'll probably skip that step.
This is somewhere between "intentionally misleading" and "objectively false" as people with physical disabilities are already able to work in software development.
> speech recognition as it stands today
...is somewhat clunky and slower than typing, but still usable. The limiting factor for software engineering is not and has never been how fast you can physically enter code.
To put this into context, this entire comment took me about three or four minutes to dictate. At my preinjury typing speed, it would've been done in under one, likely in under half of one.
The options for operating systems that are not Windows are limited and of typical hobbyist quality, but honestly the paid options on Windows are not that much better.
The only maliciousness here is the extremely manipulative nature of your comment. "Somewhat clunky" is absolutely a valid way of describing the productivity impact of current voice transcription systems, and your incredible, emotionally-manipulative hyperbole is solely meant to push an agenda.
> Voice input, when it is the only means of interacting with the computer, fucking sucks.
Yes, because the current paradigm for computers (which involves either a touchscreen or keyboard and mouse, and certain ontological constructs best represented using text-adjacent symbols) is intrinsically better suited to use by people who can use their hands. You can't fix this for the current design of computers. Can it be made better? Sure. Will there ever be parity between users who can use hands and those constrained to voice? Not for computers as we know them - and Copilot won't change that.
> An extremely conservative estimate would be a 10 X productivity impact for anything that requires precision keyboard input, such as programming.
Most time spent programming is spent thinking, not typing. I do not believe your estimate.
> To put this into context, this entire comment took me about three or four minutes to dictate.
I read your comment in a normal conversational rate in under 45 seconds. If we add in another fifteen seconds to correct a few errors using a well-designed (but contemporary, non-Copilot, non-LLM) transcription tool, that's a full minute, far below your "three or four minutes" estimate - so, your complaints are about the clunkiness of current voice-transcription tools, and completely unrelated to the topic at hand, which is Copilot.
> At my preinjury typing speed, it would've been done in under one, likely in under half of one.
There are 128 words in your comment. If you typed that in one minute, you would have a rate of 128wpm, which is faster than anyone I know, and in the 99.9th percentile of typists. If you typed that in thirty seconds, that's 256 wpm. I literally do not believe you can type that fast.
You're intentionally skewing the above numbers to support your point - not that it matters anyway, because again, most time programming is not spent typing.