Type of issue Other (describe below) Description It seems someone snuck in a blatant ad for Copilor into the docs: Source file edit adegeo: Convert issue to doc issue format so that it's linked to ...
@ChairmanMeow@abbadon420 isn’t the whole point of copilot that you *don’t* need docs to use it, though? If you’re reading the docs anyway, why wouldn’t you just read how to do it yourself?
@ChairmanMeow I think it’s relevant, though — like, if we accept that the whole premise of Copilot is that it doesn’t need to be documented, then you have to ask what Microsoft *were* intending to accomplish by putting it in the docs. Clearly they had *some* goal in mind and “to make people use Copilot” is the only thing I can think it could be. And if this bit of the docs exists not to help the user but to drive traffic to Copilot and that’s, I mean, yeah, that’s an advert disguised as a help file and it’s… at best icky
I mean, that’s entirely assuming that Microsoft also accepts that the use of Copilot requires no documentation. And given that Microsoft does have decades of experience dealing with users doing all kinds of dumb shit, they might not necessarily agree.
That’s assuming you read it that way. I don’t really read that section as “Hey go use Copilot for this”. Rather as “If you’re using Copilot, here’s how to do it with that”.
@ChairmanMeow Sure, but in this scenario you already have the relevant page of documentation open in front of you, so why would you *want* to know that Copilot exists?
@ChairmanMeow @abbadon420 isn’t the whole point of copilot that you *don’t* need docs to use it, though? If you’re reading the docs anyway, why wouldn’t you just read how to do it yourself?
Yeah I think that’s why it’s valuable to talk about these additions. Is mentioning LLM prompts even of any value?
But that is a separate (and imo much stronger) argument than the whole “mentioning Copilot is MS shilling for their own products”-argument.
@ChairmanMeow I think it’s relevant, though — like, if we accept that the whole premise of Copilot is that it doesn’t need to be documented, then you have to ask what Microsoft *were* intending to accomplish by putting it in the docs. Clearly they had *some* goal in mind and “to make people use Copilot” is the only thing I can think it could be. And if this bit of the docs exists not to help the user but to drive traffic to Copilot and that’s, I mean, yeah, that’s an advert disguised as a help file and it’s… at best icky
I mean, that’s entirely assuming that Microsoft also accepts that the use of Copilot requires no documentation. And given that Microsoft does have decades of experience dealing with users doing all kinds of dumb shit, they might not necessarily agree.
@ChairmanMeow that doesn’t strike me as a particularly strong argument for directing those users to a system that will sometimes just make stuff up?
That’s assuming you read it that way. I don’t really read that section as “Hey go use Copilot for this”. Rather as “If you’re using Copilot, here’s how to do it with that”.
@ChairmanMeow if you’re using copilot, why are you reading the docs?
Copilot isn’t perfect. And sometimes you don’t know that you can make Copilot do something if you don’t know it exists.
@ChairmanMeow Sure, but in this scenario you already have the relevant page of documentation open in front of you, so why would you *want* to know that Copilot exists?