Wait! I think most people missed your "touched by Copilot" disclaimer.

Over on twitter, someone from MS said that Copilot can modify PRs simply because they were mentioned?

I've been using GitHub since it was new and heavily rely on coding agents for development, but that's an insanely large security hole. There's clearly confusion about what copilot is and is not able to edit elsewhere in this thread.

I'm backing up old repos now, and am no longer trusting your service as an archive. I'm wondering if the world needs to fork things like npm and vs code to save itself from the supply chain attacks these sort of product management decisions will enable.

I already moved active development elsewhere when you dropped below three nines back in 2024-2025.

> We won't do something like this again.

Microsoft has been pulling user hostile crap for decades, so either "we" or "like this" (or both) is probably not super accurate. ;)

[flagged]

> But hearing the feedback here, and on reflection, this was the wrong judgement call

Hi Tim.. Why is there no pushback from grounded individuals against these decisions ?

For some reason I don't believe you. When you do things like this, you lose trust. Work to get it back

“We won’t do something like this again”

A verifiable claim! I put it at 75% you totally will, but if any manifolders think I’m full of it it should converge to something less cynical

https://manifold.markets/HastingsGreer/will-microsoft-copilo...

I’m curious how the decision to include ads like this was made. Is that something you can share?

Whoever did this must have realised the users will hate it. So… is this just demonstrating that the internal culture emphasises other things than user happiness?

I also note that ”for PRs” - will we see these appearing as comments in generated code?

> We've been including product tips in PRs created by Copilot coding agent

If the PR is wholly authored by Copilot I get the spirit of this, although maybe not the best implementation. And "tips" like this that look like an ad for a product _definitely_ feel like an enshittification betrayal of the user, even if it was a genuine recommendation and not a paid advertisement.

In the OP's situation, where where Copilot was summoned to fix some thing within a human-authored PR, irrelevant modification of the PR description to insert unrelated content is specifically egregious. Copilot can easily include the tip in its own comment, so I'm curious why it was decided to edit the description of a PR instead.

[flagged]

Thank you for listening.

Hi Tim,

I see that you're a product manager at GitHub. Can you explain why you thought this feature was value-added?

You may not want to do it, but will Microslop leadership agree? I don’t think this problem can be solved while leadership is focused only on adding more slop.

Shockingly poor judgment.

Hi Tim, it's Jim, your manager. Please stick to the officially released statement:

"We tried to put ads in our product and it made people upset, upon realizing that this has angered our already paying users, we realize we should try again in a month. We're also aware GitHub is down, and are doing our best to deliver you a single 9 of reliability"

This helps us establish a strong, cohesive brand image inline with what customers of GitHub expect.

---

Edit: I don't mean anything bad to Tim here, seems like a nice guy with good technical experience, etc. Rather, I'm expressing the almost comical extent to which I and - to the best of my understanding - many other community members see GitHub in a very negative light now, being unreliable and, as the article points out, enshitified. So, this is at GitHub, Not Tim, it's just addressed to him for the bit.

Tim, I do actually appreciate you responding to this thread and if you do have the power to make things better, using that power to do so.

[flagged]