small rant incoming

I work for a company that it’s mostly hardware focused, but we do ship some software for the final consumer including drivers and programs, to make use of said hardware.

While I am not in the software department, I held some SWE positions in previous companies for over a decade, our software isn’t very complex and I do know most of it pretty well.

Our employee just announced a new AI-only development cycle, they want all code submissions and reviews to be exclusively done by claude, effectively ending ownership of the code being shipped to customers. This is absolute madness.

Today, I received an email scheduling a workshop on how to integrate claude into vscode and how to work with the new gitflow, namely removing our authorship from commits and having al code reviews done by a LLM now.

I am just baffled at the decision.

edit: wow I’m a bit overwhelmed by the response, I did read all of you. Thanks!

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    253·
    6 days ago

    Fork the repos that matter now, and squirrel them away somewhere, just in case someone gets froggy and gives Claude write access to your repos and fucks the history of something interesting like that. Always good to have a backup contingency.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      27·
      6 days ago

      I’m of the opinion that companies that make stupid AI decisions so they can fire people shouldn’t get bailed out by a good decision made by one of the people they’re planning to fire.

      Let them burn.

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        61·
        6 days ago

        My point is more along the lines of “some prudent sandbagging might let you swoop in and save the day at some future point when everything goes tits up”

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          9·
          6 days ago

          My point is more along the lines of “Let things go tips up instead of incentivizing bad behavior by bailing them out of their fuckups.”

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        6 days ago

        and fucks the history

        And then you accidentally pull / force pull or something and your “backup” is fucked.

        Adding an extra step for a harder-to-find backup makes it more difficult to accidentally hose your known-good state.

        • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          6 days ago

          I’ve seen cases where the commit was still there, even though there were no pointers (branches/tags) pointing at it. Which raises the question, when does git delete a commit?

          • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            1·
            6 days ago

            this is one of the most common cases in which you want to mutate your history, and correctly excising content from a commit will change the commit shasum, and make the previous commit shasum (intentionally) irretrievable (from remote, at least). If the shasum doesn’t change, you haven’t removed anything.