No, copilot in the real world is not the pilot's assistant, it's also a pilot, do the same work as the pilot, takes the commands as much as the pilot and can or cannot be more experienced than the pilot.
In fact, the copilot is just a normal pilot with the only difference that the pilot is also the captain on board, responsible for the police and security on board. And most of the times, companies choose who is the pilot and who is the copilot randomly on a per-flight basis.
So no, you wouldn't a copilot that gives subtly wrong information to the pilot (and vice versa)
Generally, a copilot is someone you can trust. The whole point of having a copilot is to reduce my cognitive load. If I am a pilot and have my copilot fly the plane while I do something else, I may be in charge, but I trust him to fly safely and alert me if things go wrong. A copilot is also a licensed pilot, able to do almost everything the pilot does, he is just not in charge.
The article shows that I can't trust GitHub copilot. So I don't think it is a representative name. Here, it would be more like a servant.
I think Betteridge's Law works just fine here. The answer to the article title is 'no' because Copilot is not just one thing used in one scenario. Depending on what situation you're in and how you use it, it could be a blessing or a curse.
In fact, the copilot is just a normal pilot with the only difference that the pilot is also the captain on board, responsible for the police and security on board. And most of the times, companies choose who is the pilot and who is the copilot randomly on a per-flight basis.
So no, you wouldn't a copilot that gives subtly wrong information to the pilot (and vice versa)
reply