362
submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) by hushable@lemmy.world to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world

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!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

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 26 points 1 day 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.

[-] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 2 points 23 hours ago

Corporate suicide by AI?

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 8 points 1 day 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."

[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago

A clone of a git repository is a full backup.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 points 1 day 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?

[-] dgdft@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

By default, when it’s older than two weeks and you run any of the standard commands which trigger a GC check.

Docs here: https://git-scm.com/docs/git-gc

[-] HaraldvonBlauzahn@feddit.org 1 points 23 hours ago

Commits are pointed to by references such as branch names. If a branch is deleted or a force push happens, the commit remains accesible for some time. It can be found in the "reflog". This works much like pointers and automated memory management. If no tag points at it, it will become garbage-collected at some point. Adding a tag like "non-ai-master" would prevent garbage collection.

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.

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2026
362 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck AI

7634 readers
641 users here now

"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"

A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.

AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS