[HN Gopher] Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code ___________________________________________________________________ Kite is saying farewell and open-sourcing its code Author : dynamicwebpaige Score : 264 points Date : 2022-11-20 20:57 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.kite.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.kite.com) | EGreg wrote: | Netscape open-sourcing their code is what led to Firefox and an | open Web, as a counterweight to closed source browsers. Safari | took WebKit from Konqueror | | I wish more projects would do this | johannes1234321 wrote: | Mind that they continued working on it and built Netscape | versions on top of Mozilla/Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox. This | people with knowledge of the code base and domain pushed it | along. | synergy20 wrote: | copilot might impact kite's future, it's hard to compete against | microsoft. | | copilot: "Get code suggestions in more than a dozen coding | languages including Python, JavaScript, TypeScript, Go, and | Ruby", how about c, c++ even lua here? if they cover c and c++ I | can pay $10 per month right away. | mkoubaa wrote: | The thesis that helping developers write code has value is flat | wrong. We spend so much more time reading, reviewing, designing, | arguing/bitching about code than we do writing it. Orders of | magnitude more. | | Any developer tooling company must understand this basic fact. | dgudkov wrote: | >Our 500k developers would not pay to use it. | | You need to have 500 users to understand that, not 500K. A well- | written postmortem otherwise. | sanguy wrote: | These guys were a complete joke; and a good example of fleecing | the VC community. | | Good riddance to bad rubbish | satvikpendem wrote: | Can you explain why they're a joke? | malwrar wrote: | "Our 500k developers would not pay to use it. Our diagnosis is | that individual developers do not pay for tools." | | I don't like depending on something I could lose in a month or | tethers me to the internet. I consider that more a service than a | tool. I'd prefer to just buy something once that just works, but | that business model might be dead too since people will pirate | things that aren't tethered to some serverside component. | | I guess what I'm saying is that I want to buy tools, but people | are only renting. Personally I'm largely holding out hope this | becomes someone's open source passion project and I can truly own | my tools. | bdg wrote: | Automating software is a really hard problem. I think I can | imagine a possible roadmap to it, but it's so hard to explain it | in under an hour, it would require several sequential new | technologies, and some of it hinges on parts of information | theory I don't know enough about, and statistical ML isn't part | of the core. | satvikpendem wrote: | I've used Kite, it simply wasn't as good as Copilot. I'm not sure | why they say that Copilot still doesn't work well, it works well | enough for me and I presume everyone else who pays for it. | | That being said, glad to see a lack of Our Incredible Journey | type language here and more of a true postmortem of their | business and technical decisions. It is rare to see a company go | into so much detail when shutting down. | MisterSandman wrote: | What an honest, transparent message. Kudos. | gibsonf1 wrote: | The key issue is that ml/dl is pure statistics - there is no | intelligence or learning or conceptual awareness of space-time, | so that technology can never do so many things people try to do | with it. | perlgeek wrote: | Some ml/dl tools (think gpt3) seem to be able to answer | questions that we previously thought you needed gintelligence | for. I think the line between "pure statistics" and | "intelligence" are much more blurry than they used to be, and | might go away entirely. | gibsonf1 wrote: | Actually, I think the industry is finally realizing that | there is no intelligence there, especially with gpt3 which | can figure out with great precision what statistically comes | next, but there is zero understanding of the space-time | conceptual meaning for gpt3 in that answer - its not designed | to do anything but figure out statistically what is most | likely to come next. | | Gary Marcus has been doing a good job of exposing this: | https://garymarcus.substack.com/ | | Another key piece of evidence, the failure of all FSD | attempts trying to use ml/dl thinking its more than just | statistics. | hobofan wrote: | > Another key piece of evidence, the failure of all FSD | attempts trying to use ml/dl thinking its more than just | statistics. | | I would almost put FSD as a good example here. Yes, some | attempts here are very naive and try to use ML as a magic | black box tries to covers a long stretch of the system from | vision to turning the steering wheel. However the best | performers just utilize ML for small well-defined parts of | the system and in a "statistics on steroids" way with most | of the other parts utilizing much more traditional methods. | hobofan wrote: | Some of the things GPT3 can achieve are very impressive, but | once you work you work with it a little bit, you definitely | feel that it just regurgitates the masses of text it has been | trained on and tries to piece it together in the most | cohesive ways. And for production usage, it (and similar | models) have huge problems with halucination where it will | confidently spit out "facts" that are just plain wrong. | Mikeb85 wrote: | Individual developers pay for tools, they just have to be worth | it. JetBrains' whole existence is a testament to that. | | From what I remember, people got super annoyed at Kite for | placing ads in open source projects and they just never caught | on. | m00dy wrote: | >> It may cost over $100 million to build a production-quality | tool capable of synthesizing code reliably, and nobody has tried | that quite yet. | | $100 million is nothing tbh. | svnt wrote: | $100 million on zero product-market fit is a lot. | samspenc wrote: | While this maybe true for FAANG and other tech giants, it is | unfortunately still a lot of money for most startups that are | working their way to IPO. | | Tbh even at tech giants that make tens of billions of dollars, | a $100 million investment is likely a lot, I'm guessing this | sort of investment will require sign-off by CEO or at least VP | level along with a solid business plan. | uJustsaidit wrote: | azhenley wrote: | Kite rejected me for a position years ago which motivated me to | go raise $1M from the NSF to research AI-based dev tools before I | moved on to Microsoft. | | They seemed like a really cool team, I wish them the best. | codetrotter wrote: | > it fell short of the 10x improvement required to break through | because today's state of the art for ML on code is not good | enough. You can see this in Github Copilot, which is built by | Github in collaboration with Open AI. As of late 2022, Copilot | has a number of issues preventing it from being widely adopted. | | True, AI assisted coding does not deliver 10x. But as a user of | another AI assistant, I feel that it gives me ~1.25x to ~2x | improvement for the keyboard typing when I code. And that is | respectable too :) AI for me currently allows me to tab complete | some things that previously an IDE on its own was not able to. | lawxls wrote: | Which one do you use? | lolinder wrote: | > The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don't | understand the structure of code, such as non-local context. | | Depending on how local he's talking, this isn't really true of | Copilot. In my experience it will use context all the way up to | the top of the file, even in very long files. And at least the | Rust version even seems to look at the imports--if you have a use | declaration it will actually correctly build and use structs in | other files regardless of whether you've yet used them in the | current file. | ShamelessC wrote: | I had a similar thought. I think in this instance, they mean | something like a labeled/supervised training approach where the | model is given not just the tokenized code, but also perhaps is | grounded in the possible structure (indentation vs. semicolons, | function-scope, etc.). | | My understanding is that copilot is largely a self-supervised | approach. They feed a massive body of (somewhat noisy) code | into the model. The model really does learn a lot of structure | on its own and this is a testament to deep learning on noisy | datasets. | | I'm guessing the "hooks" that they have already from IDE's, | language-servers, etc. _are_ quite "structure-aware" - so they | want the predicted structure as well as the code, so they can | improve the typing experience beyond line-completion. | | I think the estimation of 100 million for such a task is maybe | too high? I don't know - it feels like you could actually get | quite close to such a system by simply using thousands of | custom prompt engineering tricks that prepend structure | examples to the prompt? | adamsmith wrote: | Yes, this was precisely what I was referring to. In small- | enough programs (e.g. one file) Copilot has all the context. | The other extreme would be something like the Chromium | codebase. Because of this, Copilot looks better in quick demos | than real-world use. (Though of course it is very impressive | and this tech will get there, hopefully very soon!) | lolinder wrote: | But what I'm saying is that it does use imports, at least in | Rust. I'm assuming that somehow behind the scenes they're | concatenating the contents of the imports into the prompt. | | I can imagine this is easier in a language like Rust that has | a really strict module system, and to be fair the project | that I've been using it on is a side project that isn't over | 10,000 lines of code yet. If I were up to 30 imports per file | I can imagine concatenating would become much less effective. | adamsmith wrote: | Does it seem to only understand imports of public | libraries? If so, it's likely that, rather than | understanding the contents of those libraries, it's | learning from others' use of those library APIs. If not, it | is likely just understanding the words in the API at a | shallow depth. | vessenes wrote: | Condolences to the Kite team. But, congratulations, too - you | have some of the highest value engineering experience in the | world. I'm sure you'll land somewhere great; try and take some | time off if you can afford it! | | Mulling over business models, and noticing the 'devs won't pay' | narrative in the blog post, it's interesting to see the existing | business models in AI; basically they seem to be: | | * API-driven cloud calls (this is a way to get high value out of | your existing cluster if you're AWS, MS, etc.) | | * Platform play + possible eventual lock-in: OpenAI/Microsoft | | * Subscription service for very specific needs (Grammarly, | writing support) | | I wonder if engineers would pay $9.99/month (or even | $49.99/month) for a 'grammar checker for PRs' - essentially: | "Avoid embarrassing bugs before you commit". That is, I wonder if | Kite could have been successfully sold as the third tier - sub | service for something very specific. | | I guess if it's a good idea, someone could pull the Kite repos | and launch it -- but my guess is there may be a market in there. | lbhdc wrote: | I am not convinced there is a market there. This is a feature | in existing ides, and the grammar suggestions are often wrong. | candiddevmike wrote: | Devs almost always lack any kind of purchase authority. Any | tool that appeals to devs needs to appeal to their management | more, either showing some kind of cost savings over existing | tools, increased dev productivity, or the new fangled "dev | experience" where this tool, by shear awesomeness, will let | devs put aside the low salary, process hell, and keep them | employed. | vessenes wrote: | I understand that's Kite's perspective (and yours -- | "purchasing won't pay for this"), but devs are _not_ paid | meager salaries in general, and definitely might care about | their code quality when it 's put out in 'public' whether | that be internal repos, or github. | | Payscale estimates average engineering salary as having | between $3,000 and $7,000 a month more in disposable income | over writers -- and I would guess almost every professional | writer pays for grammarly. | | But, I agree that this is a new concept, and just spitballing | -- right now, these sorts of linters and code formatting | tools are mostly open source, so it would be some product | marketing work to see if the market would actually pay. | candiddevmike wrote: | Like everything in most companies, it's never about money, | it's about control/power. It's inevitably someone's job to | manage all the SaaS shit at a company, and damnit we just | bought a JetBrains license why do you need Copilot? | neilv wrote: | Opensourcing code when you shut down has the nice effect of | making it available to the world. | | It also has the nice effect of keeping the code available to the | people most familiar with it, as they move on to other ventures. | imiric wrote: | Open sourcing when you're shutting down is only marginally | better to not releasing anything. | | It means that you didn't believe in open source while you were | in business, and are only doing so now to score some points | with your customers. There's no guarantee that someone will | step up and maintain the project for you. | happytiger wrote: | Thank you for open sourcing your startup. I'm sorry it didn't | work out. I think you deserve a big congratulations for being the | first to really go after this problem. It's a correct problem -- | it's a big market and the solution will come eventually -- I'm | just sorry it turned out to be too gnarly to solve for you right | now! I would have loved for it to have worked out better. | | I agree that Kite didn't deliver the 10x. I was an early user and | tried hard to use it but didn't find the benefit compelling | enough to drop into my workflows, but it was very exciting. | | I'm sure I speak for all of HackerNews when I wish you the best | for whatever is next for the team. | | Also, what are you good folks doing next? | jawns wrote: | > We failed to build a business because our product did not | monetize, and it took too long to figure that out. | | This is the one-sentence summary about why the business failed, | but it's kind of a strange way of putting it. | | I am dead sure that there were plenty of advisers along the way | who told the company's executives that its monetization plan was | weak and unlikely to succeed. But everyone assumes that they'll | be the exceptional case. | | "It took too long to figure that out" makes it seem like the most | likely scenario wasn't staring them in the face the whole time. | oxfordmale wrote: | I disagree with their statement that individual developers do not | pay for tools. I have paid for tools out of my own pocket on many | occasions. However, being able to deliver code 18% faster isn't | enough to fork out $9.99 a month. First of all it is relatively | expensive. For that amount I can get a personal license for | PyCharm. Secondly coding speed never tends to be a bottle neck | for delivering a feature or a product on time. I can see why | Engineering Managers are not willing to pay for this. | | I do wish the Kite team all the best, and I hope they can re-use | their skills in products that are commercially viable. | [deleted] | randomdata wrote: | Most importantly, coding is the fun part of the job. This seems | like trying to sell a DALL-E-esq product to a visual artist | promising 18% faster deliverables. Even if it is true, who is | going to be in a rush to give way in that aspect of the job and | sell their manager on it to spend more time doing the less fun | things? | | On the other hand, create an AI that can stand in during | pointless meetings and the blank checks will shower down. | selimnairb wrote: | This metric seems silly on its face. 10 bucks to get 18% more | productivity out of a $10k per month developer? If this was | indeed the case, everyone who employs software engineers would | instantly pay this. Maybe they should have marketed more? Or | maybe there are other problems with the technology (e.g., fears | over copyright infringement?). | oxfordmale wrote: | Apparently it wasn't a very good product, even before Github | Copilot came out: | | https://medium.com/swlh/kite-vs-tabnine-which-ai-code- | autoco... | IshKebab wrote: | Yeah the problem is the "if" part. It may well be true but | productivity is notoriously hard to measure and anyone making | any claims about exact productivity increases is clearly | pulling a number out of the air. People know this. | | We have plenty of techniques that we know improve | productivity (e.g. static types) but some people still don't | believe it because it's really hard to _prove_ productivity | increases. | nonbirithm wrote: | One last reminder that they once hijacked several open-source | repos to inject advertisements for their service into the | codebases. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14836653 | [deleted] | lzooz wrote: | Buying something and then changing it is not "hijacking" that | thing. | BoorishBears wrote: | If you have a nuanced understanding of the language, yes, it | is. | | The common definitions have to do with stealing, but an | equally valid definition of the word hijack is to: | | > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. | | Taking over a project so you can have it to advertise your | service is exactly that. | joecool1029 wrote: | Hey if we're going to talk language, maybe you should just | use 'Kife', it looks like Kite and means to steal. | (Allegedly derived from Old English word 'kip', net says | it's British slang, but I've heard it a few times in | northeast US. | _cs2017_ wrote: | > take over (something) and use it for a different purpose. | | You are misleading readers in order to promote your agenda. | You clearly speak perfect English, so you know what hijack | means. "take over (something) and use it for a different | purpose." is not found as a definition of "hijack" in any | dictionary. "Hijack" implies "unlawfully" or "without | having a right to do so". | | Of course, every word can be used in a slightly different | meaning; for example, in software can (harmlessly) hijack | an entity (circumventing the usual API for expediency or | performance). Such broadened semantics is perfectly fine | when there's no confusion about the meaning. Very clearly | in the case of OP, there was a clear intention to imply | "unlawful" or "without having a right", so this exception | doesn't apply. | | The sad thing is that I actually _support_ your agenda. I | just don 't support promoting it through misleading | statements. | BoorishBears wrote: | You should let Cambridge know: https://dictionary.cambrid | ge.org/us/dictionary/english/hijac... | | > to take control of or use something that does not | belong to you for your own advantage: | | And Encyclopaedia Britannica: | https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/hijack | | >: to take or take control of (something) for your own | purposes | | And Merriam Webster: https://www.merriam- | webster.com/dictionary/hijack | | > : to take or take control of (something) as if by | hijacking > often, specifically : to change the topic or | focus of (something, such as a conversation) : REDIRECT | | It wasn't my statement by the way, I just figure if | you're going to nitpick you should at least be correct | about the nit. | nielsole wrote: | The claim in the referenced article is maybe more fitting: | | > many programmers would consider [this] a violation of the | open-source spirit. | _cs2017_ wrote: | I encourage you and everyone else to follow ethical rules in | fighting unethical behavior of corporations. | | Instead of making the untrue statement above, just say | | "They used, in my opinion, an unethical way to advertise their | product; specifically, they bought OSS products and put their | ads in there." | perlgeek wrote: | I've tried Kite once, and wasn't really impressed. For example, | back when I tried it, it wouldn't offer _any_ kind of | autocompletion within a string. Even vim 's built-in autocomplete | tries to complete words for you there, based on other words | you've used before. | | Kite did sometimes offer some good suggestions in regular code, | but it tried _really_ hard to understand your code, and went | belly-up when it didn 't. | | At that time, I tried some other ML-based autocompletion tool | which wasn't specific to python, and which usually worked much | better, except that it used far too much memory and caused | regular crashes. | | Maybe they improved kite since I tried it, or maybe "individuals | don't pay for dev tools" isn't the whole story. Or maybe both. | | Anyway, kudos for both trying and for open-sourcing the code at | the end! | RandyRanderson wrote: | Would've thought Adam Smith would be able to monetize something | if anyone could. | rch wrote: | > the Kite Engine, which performs all the code analysis and | machine learning 100% locally on your computer (no code is sent | to a cloud server). | | I was never aware they changed the architecture to keep code | analysis entirely local. I would have purchased a subscription, | had I known. | ElKrist wrote: | "Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to pay | for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers 18% | faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." | | Are there a lot of businesses where individual developer | productivity, with a narrow definition of LOC per hour, is the | bottleneck? | | I've worked for 10 years as a web dev and the bottleneck is very | often at the product management level (tickets not ready, goals | changing, haven't got the credentials for the 3rd party API | yet..) and a minority of the time it's my brain (yes sometimes I | need to think before I write code). It's rarely how fast I can | write a function. So if you make me 18% faster at something I do | 1% of the time... good luck making money out of me | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | > I've worked for 10 years as a web dev and the bottleneck is | very often at the product management level | | Anecdotally, this was my experience at many companies before | working at FAANG. But it's not my experience now. | jll29 wrote: | Things I've payed for that I'm still using today: | | - Sublime | | - GitHub.com | | - ACM Digital Library | | (The latter two are subscriptions.) | | Things I've payed for in the past that I no longer use: | | - MS Visual C++ | | - Omicron Pascal | | - Application Systems Modula-2 | | - Atari ST GFA BASIC 2.0 | | - Berkeley YACC and FLEX port to TOS/GEM | | - ... | | Overall, many dev tools are free nowadays, which creates an | expectation, perhaps, that it should all be free (I disagree in | principle, but of course it is nice to see this trend | progressing). | | I appreciate that Kite is posting a post mortem for others to | learn, and I wish they had been able to find a niche where people | pay for their work. I love software tools as a work product, but | have been told by many experienced people it's not a good area | for making money. | janoc wrote: | I don't think people have problem paying for tools that are | genuinely useful for them, regardless of whether or not there | are free tools around. | | The problem with Kite seems that their engineered first ("This | machine learning AI is so cool, what can we do with it?" "I am | a VC, are you doing AI? TAKE MY $$$$!") and only after burning | through millions started to look at how to actually make money | out of it. | | And discovered that: | | a) Hobbyist/individual developers rarely want to pay yet | another subscription (can't justify it if you aren't making | money with it & even $10/month subscriptions do add up!) | | b) Corporate developers don't have purchasing authority. | Everything must get approved, by both accountants and | legal/compliance. Expecting a large company to pay a huge | monthly/annual subscription fee for what is essentially a | better autocompleter? Good luck with that. | | That "Oh but your developers will be 18% faster!" argument is | BS. 90% of the corporate developer's time isn't spent on typing | code but on debugging, design, maintenance and meetings. Kite | (or Copilot) don't help with that. | | c) What about copyright/compliance issues? This has been | trained on Github repositories - i.e. the same as Github's | Copilot. How do I know where does the completed code come from? | What about licenses on that code? Can I filter only for | permissive/non-contagious (i.e. non-GPL) licenses? What about | my code/whatever I type? Does it get sent to your servers? That | alone is a complete no-go for companies. | | In other words, a classic case where one shouldn't ask whether | something could be done but whether it should. Someone outside | of their engineering bubble and with a bit of business acumen | would have told them that. Or at least told them to do a market | research first, _before_ spending all that time and money. | | But hey, they had a good ride for the VC's money and are | winding it down in an organized manner, without leaving a ton | of shattered lives and a mountain of debt behind. So that's a | plus. | Aeolun wrote: | I think I've tried all of the code completion tools and Kite is | the only one I didn't end up paying for. It just wasn't useful | enough. | tommica wrote: | I'm sorry that it did not pan out, but thanks for sharing the | code! | | Hopefully the next project goes well! | dibt wrote: | Good riddance. I still remember how they were phoning-home | without being 100% transparent about it, and the injection of | ads. | | > We failed to build a business because our product did not | monetize, and it took too long to figure that out. | | Yet people always defend telemetry in software, saying it's how | they improve their product. 7 years of telemetry, and they | couldn't figure it out?! | sqs wrote: | Sourcegraph CEO here. I respect what you and your team built. | It's tough to build a brand new kind of product, and I heard from | many people who loved Kite over the last several years. | jrpt wrote: | "Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for | tools. Their manager might, but engineering managers only want to | pay for discrete new capabilities, i.e. making their developers | 18% faster when writing code did not resonate strongly enough." | | I never used Kite, but I've tried Github Copilot twice, and found | it marginal at best (and distracting at worst - which is why I | turned it off both times). If Kite was similar, the reason I'm | not paying is that coder AIs are not providing any value. | | Developers are somewhat reluctant to pay for tools but I think | you can get them to pay for things that are worth it. I've been | paying for code editors for years. | glenngillen wrote: | I'd recommend anybody thinking about building a devtool to read | Neil Davidson's "Don't roll the dice". It's a pretty old book, | but Neil has also made it available for free now and the | general lessons still hold true today. | | Some IC developers will pay for tools, it's very hard to have | that happen at a price point that supports the scale required. | So feature discriminate on the things their boss needs, and | charge for that. And then the next set of features for their | bosses' boss, and so on until you're selling into the C-suite. | deforciant wrote: | Paying for copilot :) at least in go it's great to write tests | and sometimes some smaller functions :) totally worth paying | for it, even from your own pocket if the company wouldn't allow | expensing it | janoc wrote: | If the company wouldn't pay for it then better think twice | because you could get in hot water with legal. That's not a | tool one's job or even company's business is worth risking | over. | | Copilot has a ton of still unresolved legal and compliance | issues (copyright violation problems, sending proprietary | code to Microsoft as you are writing it, etc.) and most | larger businesses won't touch it with a 10 foot pole for that | reason. There is even a class action lawsuit against | Microsoft over Copilot already. | joshvm wrote: | "Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for | tools." | | I think this is probably true. If you need a tool for your day | job, your company ought to be paying for it. Some companies | have slush funds for small purchases like books, but | subscription costs for services would normally need to be | approved. If you're a solo consultant then perhaps you'd pay | for tools that make you more productive. But for personal | projects the value-add would have to be pretty high to be | paying another O($10-20) a month on top of other subscriptions. | | The big group of "hobbyist" coders are students, and they get | copilot for free via Github's very generous edu package (and so | does anyone with an edu email address I think). The bigger | problem is that this is a very expensive project. It's better | suited to a big company with money to burn and deep pockets to | give it away to junior devs who will evanglise for it at their | new companies (e.g. students) for nothing. See Matlab. | dijit wrote: | If you'll allow me to go on a tangent here; | | The sheer volume of subscription services I've signed up for | as the CTO for a startup is mind-boggling. $8 here, $19 | there, $49 for something important, $99 for something | essential. | | Some tools are easily worth it, especially when you see what | is charged for other (less valuable) tools. | | Gitlab, Confluence, Jira, Asana, 1Password, co-pilot, | codepen, sentry, jetbrains, gitlab plugins for jetbrains, | Visual Studio, Docker Desktop, Perforce, Slack, | etc;etc;etc;etc | | Then there's things like Spacelift ($250!)! | | The most frustrating thing is that: | | 1) I need to justify these expenses each for what value they | bring, some things are nice to have but bring so little value | on paper. | | 2) You can't just enable tools for _some_ people, there 's | huge overlap and that overlap gets greater | | I get that people need to be paid, but these things very | quickly add up. I'm paying about 7-13% of peoples salaries | already in these subscriptions, and I feel like a total dick | for saying no to people or trying to consolidate these. | jnwatson wrote: | The weird thing is that 13% seems high. It is hard to | imagine they are less than 13% more efficient with those | tools. | | It is weird that software engineers are the only engineer- | types that are supposed to be able to do their job with | just a computer and a built-in editor. | einpoklum wrote: | > Some tools are easily worth it, especially when you see | what is charged for other (less valuable) tools. | | Maybe, but most of the tools you listed are not in that | category IMNSHO. | throwaway675309 wrote: | When I tried kite over a year ago I was relatively unimpressed | with it. Even though it ran as a plug-in to jet brains IDE it | required a windows installed service and two separate | executables running in the background (kite.exe, kited.exe), | and that stuff continue to run after exiting my IDE which was | unacceptable for me. | | Kite may have been the first to market but copilot blew them | out of the water in terms of overall functionality. | ilrwbwrkhv wrote: | I think the real reason is that developers are maybe some of | the hardest to fool customers on the planet. | | Since we literally build all of this our B.S. detection meter | is really high. | | Kite thought it can go after the up and coming new developers | by doing slightly shady things. | | However, developers also have an incredible allergy to such | tactics and it forever taints your brand. | | So overall, developers do pay for tools, just not useless ones | with shady growth tactics. | esperent wrote: | > Kite thought it can go after the up and coming new | developers by doing slightly shady things | | I briefly tried Kite a few years ago. I didn't notice | anything shady although maybe I just didn't stick around long | enough. | | What shady tactics are you referring to? | stanislavb wrote: | On the contrary, I find Github Copilot extremely helpful and | saving me heaps of time. Yes, it's not writing the logic | instead of me, but it acts like the best companion I could have | in most of the cases. | dgacmu wrote: | I pay for copilot. It saves me a modest number of minutes of | time per week. That's worth a small fee. | | And before someone jumps in: I and my other co-founder who also | uses copilot (We are the only two in the company who do, I | think, without checking) _are_ the compliance team. We 're both | very senior and use copilot basically a line or three at a time | as a smart autocomplete. It's still worth it. | hanselot wrote: | It's really just perfect for remembering obscure things and | can easily be prompted to generate the boilerplate. If you | surround it with your style you will see it try to use the | same techniques, however if you work on large code bases it | gets annoying when it starts copying the bad habits you are | trying to get rid of. In those cases it's actually kind of | good for bringing to your attention that the building next | door is still on fire. | yarg wrote: | I paid for intellij - damned near the entire architecture team | where I worked had a copy, and the company sure as shit wasn't | the one paying for it. | | (I eventually stopped subscribing, in part because they were | too slow distancing themselves from Russia, in part because of | their movement away from open source with their newer tooling.) | | Developers will pay for software, if the value proposition is | there. | lolinder wrote: | > in part because they were too slow distancing themselves | from Russia | | I'd cut them some slack here. They had to get their team out | of there first--with the way Putin is running things, they | sure as hell couldn't announce they were leaving Russia until | everyone who was going to follow them was out of there. | | On the day of the invasion they tweeted a statement | condemning the attack, and within two weeks announced they | were leaving Russia. | | https://twitter.com/jetbrains/status/1496786254494670851?lan. | .. | | https://blog.jetbrains.com/blog/2022/03/11/jetbrains- | stateme... | vinyl7 wrote: | > Developers are somewhat reluctant to pay for tools but I | think you can get them to pay for things that are worth it. | | Indeed, I payed for a debugger because MSVC is pretty terrible | eloff wrote: | My experience with copilot has been very different. It easily | pays for itself, and getting my employer (seed stage startup) | to spring for it for the entire team was an easy sell. | | Yeah it's pretty dumb most of the time. But I know that, and I | don't use code from it without carefully checking it out and | modifying it. But it's still a huge help. Just the time saved | writing tests alone pays for it. And I've had a few spooky | experiences where it feels like it knows the bug fix before I | do. Think of it as a smarter auto-complete. | | The technology has a long way to go, but I completely disagree | with Kite here. It's already good enough to pay for. If my | company didn't pay for it, I would. I already pay for | JetBrains, and it costs more than Copilot. I would give up | JetBrains before I give up Copilot. | | My guess here is Kite positioned themselves as a free | alternative to Copilot and then couldn't monetize. There very | likely is more to it though. | jrsj wrote: | Kite has been around for a lot longer, if anything Copilot | was Github copying them | esperent wrote: | I don't think it's reasonable to say either was copying. AI | assisted tooling is obvious and people have been waiting | decades for the tech to reach a point where they can build | these tools. Kite tried to get in early - too early | probably - but even if they were the very first they didn't | invent the idea. | morelisp wrote: | How are you validating the quality of its tests? Are you | trying any mutations, checking branch coverage, etc.? | lolinder wrote: | > Just the time saved writing tests alone pays for it. | | This, so much. My code since using Copilot is easily ten | times better tested than it was before, and I wasn't | especially lazy when it comes to testing. | | Given 1-2 hand-written unit tests, Copilot can start filling | in test bodies that correctly test what's described in the | function name. When I can't think of any more edge cases, | I'll go prompt it with one more @Test annotation (or | equivalent in another language) and it will frequently come | up with edge cases that I didn't even think of and write a | test that tests that edge case. | | (One great part about this use case for those who are a | little antsy about the copyright question is that you can be | pretty darn confident that you're not running a risk of | accidental copyright violation. I write the actual business | logic by hand, which means copilot is generating tests that | only interact with an API that _I_ wrote.) | jascination wrote: | Out of interest, how are you using it to write tests? Do you | just write "make a test for functionX" or something? | | (Don't have much experience with it) | mattwad wrote: | The best part about it for me is just the Intellisense (in | Typescript). I'm using it on probably 3/5 lines that I | write as a smarter version, but I rarely use it to do more | than finish the current line I am writing. | lolinder wrote: | You just write the name of the test. I'm doing this a lot | and Rust right now for a toy language, and I can write | something like: #[test] fn | adds_two_numbers_correctly() | | Copilot will produce a test body that feeds an addition | expression into my interpreter and validates that the | output is what is expected. | satvikpendem wrote: | Yes, if you show an example, or even have the test file | open, it will make the other tests for you. | dboreham wrote: | I wonder if this says something about the nature of test | code? | djbusby wrote: | Sure, it's been loads of boilerplate since forever. | premun wrote: | It is amazing for typing out mock data. Say you're testing | parsing of XML - it can easily suggest the the assertions | over the data parsed from the XML. Example test that was | 95% coming out of Copilot: | https://github.com/dotnet/arcade- | services/blob/61babf31dc63c... | | It also predicts comments and logging messages amazingly | well (you type "logger." add 7/10 times get what you want, | sometimes even better), incorporating variables from the | context around. This speeds up the tedious parts of | programming when you are finalizing the code (adding docs + | tracing). | | Honestly, Copilot saves me so much time every week while | turning chores into a really fun time. | didibus wrote: | The tool just has to be very well integrated and easy to use. | That's why copilot is seeing adoption, because Microsoft owns | VSCode and has built a very simple integration of Copilot into | VSCode. | | That said, I'm not even sure VSCode or Copilot is lucrative, if | it wasn't owned by Microsoft, could they both be sustainable | businesses? | grepLeigh wrote: | I'd be curious to hear about services/tools developers _do_ pay | for. The diagnosis that developers do not pay for tools seems | off to me. | | A few tools that I put on the company card when I worked at a | Big Tech Co as an IC: | | * DataGrip (Jet brains) | | * Colab Pro (Google) | | * Postman Pro | | These were all small $ enough where I didn't need to justify | the expense. It was just assumed that if I thought the tool was | worth the $, it was. | | For more expensive purchasing decisions, there was a longer | purchasing/approval process. But the expense would have to be | 5-6 figures per year before hitting this barrier. | make3 wrote: | Copilot is really great. Kite is garbage, & they have | absolutely zero consumer trust from all the bullshit they did | luckylion wrote: | > Developers are somewhat reluctant to pay for tools but I | think you can get them to pay for things that are worth it. | I've been paying for code editors for years. | | Especially when you don't market to developers in general, but | freelancers/contractors specifically. It might be hard to sell | to salaried developers (they'll buy because it's nicer to work | with good tools), but it's easy to sell tooling to anyone who | makes more money when they get more done. | arcturus17 wrote: | Loads of devs I've spoken to, from junior to principal level, | absolutely love Github Copilot though. Don't know who is paying | it for them, nor if Kite was significantly worse, but I think | that at least Copilot has a brilliant future ahead of it. | candiddevmike wrote: | Until Microsoft grants Copilot users blanket protection over | copyright claims from Copilot generated code, I wouldn't even | think of touching it. | epolanski wrote: | Same. | | Never ever I'm risking breaking copyright, and I also don't | like Microsoft not including their own code in the model. | Jenk wrote: | We may well find out the answer to that when this | lawsuit[0] concludes. | | [0]: https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/8/23446821/microsoft- | openai... | candiddevmike wrote: | If Copilot generates the exact same code as the source, I | don't see how that process could be exempt, it's like | using the clipboard on your PC with extra steps. | urthor wrote: | It's interesting, the ones I've spoken to are _extremely_ | suspicious. | | "GitHub Copilot blocks your ability to learn." Is a common | refrain. | | I don't see ANY industry-wide consensus on whether GitHub | Copilot truly helps developers right now. | | The only scenario I can get anyone to agree on is generating | templates. Aka, JSON or CSS files that you then edit. | hanselot wrote: | throwaway675309 wrote: | It doesn't block your ability to learn any more than any | auto suggestion systems. But I guess it depends on what you | value in terms of learning, for me, copilot allows me to | focus on the larger architectural problems while not having | to worry about the exact syntax of certain things (DSL | query language, middleware express, typescript def | annotations, etc). | | Every time I don't have to context switch to look up some | technical errata in my browser is a complete win for me. | satvikpendem wrote: | I use it. It's good for boilerplate code or basically | anything where you can avoid looking at the docs. For | example, I was writing an ML training loop and it correctly | filled in the rest of the function after I wrote the first | few lines. The code is basically what's in the pytorch | docs, just fit to my model and scenario. | dreamyfigment wrote: | I _love_ Copilot but the only reason I use it is because I | qualify under their open source developers program, I just | can't justify paying $10/month for it. | robertlagrant wrote: | How much do you love it, then? What would you pay, if it's | less than $10/mo? | didibus wrote: | It saves a bit of time, but doesn't seem to make a | difference on time to market of features, products, | improvements or bug fixes. | | In my experience, it's a quality of life improvement, but | the things that dictate actual time to market is | bottlenecked by things that aren't solved by copilot, | such as overall design, decision making, requirements | gathering, code structure/architecture, solution | ideation, user acceptance, infrastructure setup, etc. | | I think if it eventually could help with those other | tasks, you'd see time to market gains, and that would | start to make it really valuable. | [deleted] | ShamelessC wrote: | Your anecdote is trivially rebutted with another. I tried | Github Copilot _more than twice_ (gasp), and now pay 10$/month | for it. Happily. | candiddevmike wrote: | How does your workplace/compliance officer feel about you | using it? | ShamelessC wrote: | Workplace? I think I remember those... | jrpt wrote: | That's why I tried it twice. I've been hearing people say | they liked it. But I haven't found it very helpful, and often | distracting, so I ended up turning it off. I'll probably try | again next year when the models are improved to see if I feel | any differently then. | ShamelessC wrote: | Yeah, I understand. I just see a lot of people on here who | seem to be deliberately looking for reasons not to like | Copilot. | | You don't fit that stereotype, of course. So feel free to | ignore the following. | | Developer tools have learning curves. One doesn't simply | open vim/emacs for the first time with a full understanding | of how to use it (or why it's a good tool to use, even). | Historically, we have had _no_ problem with the steepness | of this curve. But, when it comes to Copilot, there's a lot | of "tried it and it output an obvious bug! how did this | make it past quality assurance?? such a liability!" Just | very reactionary and all-that. | | Anyway, sorry for the toxic response. | epolanski wrote: | Risking breaking copyright and not supporting a model of | code laundering isn't exactly looking for reasons. | ivalm wrote: | I pay for github co-pilot. It seems surprisingly bad for | typescript and excellent for python. | cowmix wrote: | I tried it. Ironically, it was pretty good for Powershell and | so so for Python (in my case at least). | refulgentis wrote: | This is a very self-serving recap: "we were too early and we're | still too early and Copilot proves it because its not 10x": it is | 10x, sorry. | throwaway675309 wrote: | Yeah having tried kite years ago, copilot absolutely destroys | them in terms of helpful suggestions both at a line level and | at a code block level. Its contextual awareness of surrounding | code is also fantastic. | | Now whether or not that's due to the fact that copilot had the | financial resources to train a significantly superior ML model | is another question, but throwing shade at copilot is a fairly | transparent move. | vagab0nd wrote: | Yeah, I was very confused by that paragraph. Copilot is not | perfect, but it's "good enough" that I'm happily paying $10/mo. | nnoitra wrote: | rockzom wrote: | > Our 500k developers would not pay to use it. | | lol | dopeboy wrote: | From one founder (of a much smaller startup) to another: respect | for writing this. It probably wasn't easy but the fact that you | took the time to do it and share learnings so that the next | startup in the space can benefits speaks volumes about y'all. | dmarlow wrote: | I'm confused. | | "we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is not | ready yet." | | "Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for | tools." | | "We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers, but it | fell short of the 10x improvement required to break through | because today's state of the art for ML on code is not good | enough." | | Sounds like you know why people didn't pay for it. If it truly | did make people as productive as you claim, it would have sold | like hot cross buns on a cold day. | [deleted] | make3 wrote: | plus, again, they had zero developer trust because of all the | ultra shady stuff they did | victorvosk wrote: | I find co-pilot useful when I am working with a language I am not | familiar with but I imagine that isn't the case for most | developers working their day to days. I see ML and AI in dev as | more of a code generation tool. Describe something large in a | prompt, get a bunch of code. Then a dev can run through it like a | code-review, making changes and tweaking it to suite the need of | the client/business. | tomcam wrote: | Mad props for facing the truth and unsparingly admitting | responsibility. So so rare. | | Whoever wrote this will go far. | oofbey wrote: | I think they're spot on to say they were too early. But their | analysis of the current state is pretty tainted by their personal | situation. | | Many people I know find copilot extremely helpful. I think tools | like it are about to become extremely important to the | productivity of everyday developers. I seriously doubt it will | take $100M to develop. The company Kite might have needed $100M | to get there, but I bet you a few smart people working evenings | in their garages can get there too. | | Also the "nobody pays for dev tools" line is pretty obviously a | weak excuse. Github is a developer tool that was worth $7B+. The | truth was they just didn't provide _enough_ value to get people | to pay for it. That's clearly true, and goes along with their | idea that they were too early. Not that the problem is | impossible. | ACV001 wrote: | It failed because they did it exactly in reverse of how it should | have been done. First they assembled the team, then they outlined | the product then marketing and then only then they realized | nobody would pay for that. You're supposed to first sell your | product and then build it! I wonder whether anyone raised this | issue in the early stage... | yieldcrv wrote: | correction: sell your product first and then hire another firm | to build it to your specifications | renewiltord wrote: | I pay for Copilot. Integrates with my neovim and my Jetbrains | IDEs. I love it. Great stuff honestly. | | My favourite use is at the command line. It's great! | | I pay for it myself and use it in all sorts of contexts. | inglor wrote: | > As of late 2022, Copilot has a number of issues preventing it | from being widely adopted. | | I see CoPilot all around me and it's generally well regarded and | pretty widely adopted given how new it is. | | Is there any data for this statement you can share? | | (Thanks for working on kite and good luck!) | solarkraft wrote: | I never cared a lot about Kite. But oh boy, suddenly it's the | only product in a category I do care about! Thank you! | ShamelessC wrote: | What category is that? Open source code generation? | satvikpendem wrote: | If so, there are others too, like Fauxpilot, and the | Salesforce one, both are open source I believe. | jokethrowaway wrote: | As a fellow failed startupper, this blog post reads like any | other failed startup goodbye post. | | Sure, your people were great but they didn't innovate enough to | make an attractive product (granted, AI code autocompletion is | hard - I doubt we'll get something I'd be happy to pay before we | reach GAI and we'll be all out of a job by then). | | Oh and the "It's not the tech fault which is amazing, it's just a | sales pipeline issue!" | | Look, I understand caring about your employees and I said the | same BS when my company failed trying to shift all the blame on | me and not on my team. When you are in a startup it's everyone's | job to say "hey, btw, what we want to do will suck because the | tech is not there". | | If you see something raise it and try to pivot, or you'll be out | of a job with worthless grades.ss in | | Maybe you could have cut your losses earlier on. | throwthere wrote: | > Our diagnosis is that individual developers do not pay for | tools. | | Throwing salt on the wound here but that's just false. I mean, | there's copilot and it's alternative that I can't think of the | name right now. more broadly there's Jet brains ides, visual | studio, Productivity apps, etc. look at product hunt or appsumo | or popular show hns. Devs pay for tools, just not Kite. | | Edit: I should clarify, enough devs pay for tools to make the | market sustainable. Not all devs pay for tools. | svnt wrote: | You think copilot is self-sustaining/profitable? | throwthere wrote: | > You think copilot is self-sustaining/profitable? | | Yes. | dustingetz wrote: | copilot hit $40M ARR in the first month: 400k subscribers * | $100/yr | | https://www.ciodive.com/news/github-copilot-microsoft- | softwa... | marcinzm wrote: | How much of that is paid for by devs and how much is paid for | by their employers? | vkou wrote: | Getting my manager to spring for an IntelliJ license instead | of a free Eclipse was the easiest thing in the world. | | (That manager getting the purchase order approved through | corporate took months and months, but that's neither here nor | there.) | jmnicolas wrote: | Frankly I don't pay for tools. Money is tight at work and at | home, so if it's not free it ain't happening. | legerdemain wrote: | Kite made me a very good (for a startup) job offer a few years | back. They had a very friendly and welcoming bunch of people, and | even Adam, the founder, came off as a typical human being in | conversation. Easily the best job I've ever turned down, even | knowing that Copilot would eat their lunch a year or two later. | didip wrote: | This is the first time I heard of Kite and I frequent HN a lot. | | Maybe they should have spent more budgets on marketing. | | That said, I agree that no one wants to pay for developer | productivity. The only exceptions are IDE and databases. | peter_d_sherman wrote: | >"First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted | programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. | the tech is not ready yet." | | I highly doubt that you failed! You blazed a trail forward for | people in the future to follow. Financial success is not the same | thing as taking a super tough problem to solve and then making | inroads solving or starting to solve the many sub-problems (and | their sub-problems) that invariably show up as a result of taking | that path. | | >"Then we grew our user base. We executed very well here, and | grew our user base to 500,000 monthly-active developers, with | almost zero marketing spend." | | That's extremely impressive in my book! (By comparison, I failed | to get 2 users -- for one of the apps I built -- and that was | _with_ marketing spend! <g>) | | >"Then, our product failed to generate revenue. Our 500k | developers would not pay to use it." | | You might mean that there may have been an issue with | communicating the VALUE of your product such that users would | "see" (magical word, "see" -- "percieve", "understand", "observe | in a way that you do") the VALUE of it -- such that they would be | willing to equally-and-oppositely exchange their money for that | VALUE... | | Finally: | | I do not think that you failed, and _you have no reason to | apologize to your investors, customers, employees and others._ | | You pushed the envelope -- and you created great value for future | generations who will no doubt benefit from your pioneering steps | in this gargantuan undertaking. | | Well done -- and I think more people should appreciate you for | that! | rubiquity wrote: | > First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted | programming because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. | the tech is not ready yet. | | That's not the same thing as being too early to the market. That | simply means you didn't have a solution capable of solving a | problem. | dynamicwebpaige wrote: | "While we built next-generation experiences for developers, our | business failed in two important ways. | | First, we failed to deliver our vision of AI-assisted programming | because we were 10+ years too early to market, i.e. the tech is | not ready yet. | | We built the most-advanced AI for helping developers, but it fell | short of the 10x improvement required to break through because | today's state of the art for ML on code is not good enough. You | can see this in Github Copilot, which is built by Github in | collaboration with Open AI. As of late 2022, Copilot has a number | of issues preventing it from being widely adopted. | | The largest issue is that state-of-the-art models don't | understand the structure of code, such as non-local context. We | made some progress towards better models for code, but the | problem is very engineering intensive. It may cost over $100 | million to build a production-quality tool capable of | synthesizing code reliably, and nobody has tried that quite yet. | | Nonetheless, we could have built a successful business without | 10x'ing developer productivity using AI, and we did not do that. | | We failed to build a business because our product did not | monetize, and it took too long to figure that out." | acyou wrote: | Value generation in software doesn't equal profit generation. Is | it a flawed business model to pursue growth first and profit | later? No, as long as there is a good plan to get that future | profit. If the 500k developers weren't driving business spending | decisions enough to pay for Kite, either it isn't particularly | useful or it's a sign of the times. I'm guessing from the rest of | the context it's the former, no one seems to be crying out that | this is a great product that will be widely missed. This sort of | failure is good and a good decision by the business leaders. It | keeps our economy healthy, you want the real winners to win, and | not every bet works out. | mistrial9 wrote: | code repos | | https://github.com/orgs/kiteco/repositories | 29athrowaway wrote: | Once it's done, your product manager will push any improvements | to the bottom of the backlog. | netik wrote: | Ten years too early? no. | | They got wiped out by microsoft, github copilot, and litigation | issues around AI provided code. | TheRealPomax wrote: | I think you'll find that trying to make copilot in 2014 was | definitely 10 years too early. Hell, even Copilot is a few | years to early at the moment. | selimnairb wrote: | I would never willingly pay for AI coding tools. Why should I | help improve a product that has a chance of putting myself or my | fellow software developers out of work in the future? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-20 23:00 UTC)