Microsoft replaces classic GitFlow diagram with AI-generated version

Microsoft replaces classic diagram with AI slop

Microsoft published an AI-generated version of Vincent Driessen’s famous GitFlow diagram on its official Learn portal without attribution. The company’s technical documentation team apparently used an image generator to recreate the 2010 graphic, resulting in a distorted image filled with nonsensical text and broken logic.

Developers on Bluesky and Hacker News flagged the image after noticing it lacked the clarity of the original source. The AI-generated version includes the phrase "continvoucly morged" instead of "continuously merged." It also features arrows that point in the wrong directions and misaligned branch lanes.

Driessen created the original "A successful Git branching model" diagram 14 years ago using Apple Keynote. He released the source files to the public, allowing the diagram to become the industry standard for version control workflows. It has appeared in thousands of books, blog posts, and internal company wikis since its debut.

The death of technical accuracy

Microsoft’s use of AI for technical documentation represents a significant decline in editorial standards for the trillion-dollar company. Technical diagrams serve as precise instructions for software engineers who need to understand complex data structures. When an AI hallucinates the direction of a data flow, the diagram becomes a liability rather than a resource.

The original GitFlow diagram used a specific visual language to communicate how code moves between different environments. Driessen spent weeks obsessing over the curves, colors, and layout to ensure readability. Microsoft’s AI-generated replacement discards this logic in favor of a rough visual approximation that fails to convey the actual Git workflow.

The AI-generated image contains several critical failures that make it useless for educational purposes:

• Nonsensical text: Labels like "continvoucly morged" replace standard technical terms.
• Broken logic: Arrows point toward parent branches without context, violating the rules of Git versioning.
• Visual noise: The clean, color-coded lanes of the 2010 original are now muddled and overlapping.
• Misaligned nodes: The dots representing specific code commits no longer align with the timeline.

Plagiarism through a machine lens

Driessen noted that while he has always encouraged the sharing of his work, Microsoft’s approach feels like an attempt to "wash off the fingerprints" of the original creator. By running the diagram through an AI, the company generated a derivative work that avoids direct image-to-image plagiarism while stealing the fundamental structure. This process removes the need for Microsoft to provide a backlink or credit to the author.

The incident highlights a growing trend of "AI slop" in professional documentation. Companies are increasingly choosing to generate content through algorithms rather than hiring designers or technical writers to update legacy assets. This shift prioritizes content volume over accuracy and human accountability.

Microsoft has not yet explained the internal process that allowed this image to bypass its editorial review. The Learn portal is a primary resource for millions of developers worldwide, making the presence of "morged" text particularly embarrassing. It suggests that no human being verified the image before it went live on a production server.

The impact on developer education

Inaccurate documentation creates real-world friction for junior developers trying to learn industry standards. If a student follows the logic of a broken diagram, they may implement faulty branching strategies that lead to merge conflicts or data loss. High-quality educational resources require human oversight to ensure technical validity.

Microsoft’s reliance on AI for these assets suggests a lack of ambition in its documentation department. Instead of building on Driessen's work or improving the visual clarity for a modern audience, the company shipped a degraded version. This "content generation" mindset treats information as a commodity rather than a tool for learning.

Driessen expressed concern that as AI models become more advanced, this type of plagiarism will become harder to detect. The current "slop" is easy to identify because of the obvious typos and visual artifacts. Future iterations may look professional while still stripping away the credit and nuance of the original human work.

A demand for better standards

The software community has reacted with a mix of humor and frustration to the "continvoucly morged" meme. While the typo is funny, the underlying issue is the erosion of the open-source spirit. Driessen provided the industry with a free, high-quality tool, and Microsoft responded by automating its destruction.

Driessen is now asking Microsoft for two things to rectify the situation:

• Proper attribution: A simple link back to the 2010 article that started the GitFlow movement.
• Process transparency: An explanation of how an unvetted AI asset reached a high-traffic learning resource.

Microsoft’s Learn portal is supposed to be a gold standard for technical instruction. Using AI to bypass the work of human designers undermines that reputation. As the company continues to integrate Copilot and other AI tools into its ecosystem, the pressure to maintain accuracy in its own documentation will only increase.

The "morged" diagram has since been a topic of heavy discussion on social media, serving as a warning for other tech giants. If a company with Microsoft's resources cannot bother to proofread a single diagram, the future of the web looks increasingly like a graveyard of automated errors. For now, the original 2010 diagram remains the only reliable version of the GitFlow model.