As much as I'd like to also dunk on them because of their AI nonsense, this keeps being misquoted again and again. He said that about 20-30% of their code is written by software. If someone like Satya says "by software" and not "by AI", you can be very sure that there is a good reason that he's phrasing it as carefully as this - because that includes a lot of things like auto-generated code, e.g. COM classes generated from IDL files. Of course in the current climate everyone that's not careful enough will just mis-interpret it as "30% written by AI", and that is probably intentional.
It's worse than that. What he actually said was "Maybe 20 to 30 percent of the code that is inside of our repos today in some of our projects are probably all written by software."
Translation: maybe some of the code in some of our projects is probably written by software.
Seriously. That's what he said. Maybe some of the code in some of our projects is probably written by software.
How this became "30% of MS code is written by LLMs" is beyond me. It's wild. It's ridiculous.
This happened during LlamaCon while taking about Copilot/LLMs: if the percentages Satya was referring to were for any "auto-generated" code then he was being intentionally misleading.
Besides, you could also say that 100% of code is generated "by software" no?
For reference, the quote is "I'd say maybe 20%, 30% of the code that is inside of our repos today and some of our projects are probably all written by software"
Microsoft has humongous amounts of source code in their repositories, amassed over decades. LLM-driven code generation is only feasible within the last few years. It would be completely unrealistic that 30% of all of their code is written by LLMs at this point in time. So yes, there is something in his quote that is intentionally misleading. Pick whatever you think it is, but I'm going to say that it's the "by software" part.
