> They get the team that built it and have more people on the AI initiative who are consumer-centric.
Who are comfortable releasing systems with horrible security, while proudly stating they never read the code? And with metrics that can be gamed by anyone, but that got reported to literally the entire world?
> The lesson here is to spend less time focused on doing what you think is the right thing and spend more time tinkering.
I'd say the lesson here is that clown world keeps on giving, but hey, maybe I'm just jealous ;)
I can't see how anyone can think "the exporters pay the tariff" makes any sense. TBH, we'll never know how many people thought it made sense because it didn't matter.
Reading the comments here I see almost everyone posting assumes this is a genuine interaction of an autonomous AI with the repo, not a human driving it.
I think this is important - these topics get traction because people like to anthropomorphise LLMs and the attention grab is 'hey, look at what they learned to do now'.
It's much less sexy if it's not autonomous, if this was a person the thread would not get any attention.
Steve Yegge's a famous developer, this is not a joke :) You could say he is an AI maximalist, from your options I'd go with (b) serious with the idea, tongue-in-check in the style and using a lot of self-irony.
It is exaggerated, but this is how he sees things ending up eventually. This is real software.
If things do end up in glorified kanban boards, what does it mean for us? That we can work less and use the spare time reading and doing yoga, or that we'll work the same hours with our attention even more fragmented and with no control over the outputs of these things (=> stress).
I'd really wish that people who think this is good for us and are pushing for this future do a bit better than:
I listened to bits of it and I was disappointed by the lack of push back from Lex who was supper excited because he got to hang out with Durov for a couple of weeks in Dubai - the tl;dr I got from what I heard is that Telegram is amazing and Durov is a visionary freedom fighter. Lex's recent history I'm not surprised though.
He claims: 'So, by the time the head of intelligence services met me to ask about Romania to help them silencing conservative voices in Romania, I was already wary of what can be going on next.'
I call bullshit on this. The 'conservative voices' are muppets doing Russia's bidding who broke all sorts of election laws. There was nothing serious happening on Telegram in Romania that would warrant any foreign intervention, it just doesn't make sense.
Speaking of agents and tests, here's a fun one I had the other day: while refactoring a large code base I told the agent to do something precise to a specific module, refactor with the new change, then ensure the tests are passing.
The test suite is slow and has many moving parts; the tests I asked it to run take ~5 minutes. The thing decided to kill the test run, then it made up another command it said was the 'tests' so when I looked at the agent console in the IDE everything seemed fine collapsed, i.e. 'Tests ran successfully'.
Obviously the code changes also had a subtle bug that I only saw when pushing its refactoring to CI (and more waiting). At least there were tests to catch the problem.
Your point to not rely on good intentions and have systems in place to ensure quality is good - but your comparison to humans didn't go well with me.
Very few humans fill in their task with made up crap then lie about it - I haven't met any in person. And if I did, I wouldn't want to work with them, even if they work 24/7.
Obligatory disclaimer for future employers: I believe in AI, I use it, yada yada. The reason I'm commenting here is I don't believe we should normalise this standard of quality for production work.
I will guess that you are generating orders of magnitude more lines of code with your software than people do when building projects with LLMs - if this is true I don't think the analogy holds.
Why does the title say 'in London'? Everything else I've read in the thread refers to Manchester.
I agree with other posters, unless there's a clear strategy to cash in on the equity, you can consider it (to put it nicely) a bet with bad odds. You say you're friends with the founders, that should decrease the chances of you getting screwed over but it's still a possibility. And that's in the unlikely scenario that you can cash in your shares.
A question for you - if you can get a job at a company with a higher total comp (RSUs, bonus etc), why don't you? If the answer is you haven't looked at this but would be willing, get an offer and come back with it to your founders. You can do that after they give you this current raise.
Also, beware, management is different from doing everything yourself :)