Kinda weird experience to be reading textual descriptions of memes and having to reconstruct them in my head. They had enough to say to not need to pad out their word count that way.
You need to hallucinate the memes
They're probably doing that to protect the identity of any Google workers providing them with information. If they posted the actual meme, Google could possibly trace it back to an employee and fire them.
Some of the memes they do have in the article, they note they are reconstructions and not the actual memes from Googles internal channels.
I agree it's long though, they could have just recreated them and skipped the written description.
This is too real.
Now I get PRs entirely written by Claude from my VP that include things like full plaintext secret keys, or reimplement an API that exists, just shittier.
“Claude wrote this in an hour, why is review taking so long”
Uhh because I can’t figure out the diplomatic way to say this is shit and you need to stop without creating an incident, and I don’t want to spend half my day reviewing crap.
Have you tried asking them a bunch of technical questions they don't know the answer to, until they give up?
Or spending hours explaining in excruciating detail all the reasons why it's shit and what they should have done instead, make sure to throw all the heavy handed certification standards and strict audit requirements and mind numbing bike shedding naming standards back at them.
Yeah also noticing similar bullshit. People send me exact steps on what to do written by ChatGPT that understands exactly nothing about the context and is therefore often wrong or a half truth at best.
Another client has pushed a single commit to a messy project that added 70k lines and a load of new features. The project is now unmaintainable.
I'm just glad people will write off my terrible code as AI.
Instructions are sloppy, code can be sloppy, but what I find is: when they review code changes they find real stuff. Not all the real stuff, but more real stuff than human reviewers typically find. A code review doesn't need to be perfect, not even 100% correct, it just needs to show you stuff that you look at and think "damn, good to catch this now instead of in a field problem report a year from now..."
Are you guys hiring freshers by any chance ?
Best part of the article, hat tip to author Emanuel for how he included the correction request:
After this story was published Google's spokesperson reached out and asked us to publish a slightly different version of that statement. The new statement no longer stated that "it's critical that we maintain humans in the loop."
I was going to quote this part as well - nice bit of malicious compliance.
Google: 🙋 "Erm, sorry, your portrayal of our complete lack of ethics is incomplete. Thank you."
Its a very damning line to retract, but I don't think anybody is surprised at this point
Google’s CEO says 75% of the company’s code is AI-generated.
Everyone should take this with a huge grain of salt. Like all other internal company stat reports, it's bullshit and manufactured.
Example: my company has recently introduced a gate on CI. All commits must have "Co-Authored-By: X". Technically, you can set X=None, but most people aren't doing that because we're not stupid and we know the commit history can easily be data mined and used to generate stats on who is or isn't using AI. And we don't want to get fired.
Result: 99% of all new commits use "Co-Authored-By: Claude". Every commit I make now has "Co-Authored-By: Claude". Am I using AI? FUCK NO. But, now I have to add that stupid line to any work I turn in.
This is insane to me. Having a way to easily distinguish AI generated commits from human created ones makes a lot of sense, but lying that your honest, high quality handcrafted commit is AI slop makes it pointless.
That people feel they need to do this in order to protect their jobs is fucking insane and self destructive.
We're a small company so I do the opposite and am avoiding any co-authored tag being applied to the code I publish.
I review and test my code before it's published to make sure that it works and that it's the right solution to the problem, and I'm the one responsible for fixing it if it goes wrong late at night in prod.
That was the case when I was using Intellisense and codegen tools and that's still the case now.
That makes me the author.
Anything else is a lie, a violation of engineering ethics, and is flat out not SOC2, nor regulatorily compliant for anything that matters.
Microslop really went to shit after statements just like that. Can't wait for google to implode too
We have a commit skill we’re supposed to use. So for non-trivial work that I don’t want the AI to screw up i do it by hand then use the skill so it can vomit put a commit message and PR.
I get the shiny “Co-Authored-By: Claude” and burn a ton of tokens to make myself look “AI Fluent”
Remember that part in The Big Short where the stripper is talking about all the houses she owns? Similar vibes.
Stark reality. Thank you.
Can't you script it with a git hook?
"We encourage our engineers to vigorously test and critique our internal tools; that candid feedback loop, even via our internal meme generator, is vital to how we build technology"
Google listening to employee feedback:
Honestly, that would be great if they just tossed it out the window.
What they're probably doing is building a list of who they should layoff next based on the feedback.
And tossing them out the window.
paid tons of money to fool around while some who would be willing to work dont get hired no matter what
Their meme game is weak
Maybe they should try having AI generate some memes for them.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
