5 ms·

Malicious compliance should be the order of the day. Just approve the requests without reviewing them and wait until management blinks when Microsoft's entire t

Malicious compliance should be the order of the day. Just approve the requests without reviewing them and wait until management blinks when Microsoft's entire tech stack is on fire. Then quit your job and become a troubleshooter on x3 the pay.

tantalor 1y ago
> when Microsoft's entire tech stack is on fire Too late?
- MonkeyClub 1y ago
  Just in time for marshmallows!
hello_computer 1y ago
Might as well when they’re going to lay you off no matter what you do (like the guy who made an awesome TypeScript compiler in Go).
xyst 1y ago
At some point code pilot will just delete the whole codebase. Can’t fail integration tests if there is no code :)
- otabdeveloper4 1y ago
  That would be logical, but alas LLMs can't into logic. Bloating the codebase with dead code is much more likely.
sbarre 1y ago
I know this is meant to sound witty or clever, but who actually wants to behave this way at their job? I'll never understand the antagonistic "us vs. them" mentality people have with their employer's leadership, or people who think that you should be actively sabotaging things or be "maliciously compliant" when things aren't perfect or you don't agree with some decision that was made. To each their own I guess, but I wouldn't be able to sleep well at night.
- nope1000 1y ago
  On the other hand: why should you accept that your employer is trying to fire you but first wants you to train the machine that will replace you? For me this is the most "them vs us" it can be.
- Hamuko 1y ago
  Considering that there's daily employee protests against Microsoft now, probably a lot of Microsoft employees want to behave like that.
- Xori71 1y ago
  I agree. It doesn’t help that once things start breaking down, the employer will ask the employees to fix the issue themselves, and thus they’ll have to deal with so much broken code that they’ll be miserable. It’ll become a spiral.
  - anonymousab 1y ago
    When the issues arise because of the tool being trained explicitly to respect/fire you, then that sounds like an apt and appropriate resulting level of job security.
- Frost1x 1y ago
  I suppose that depends on your relationship with your employer. If your goals are highly aligned (e.g. lots of equity based compensation, some degree of stability and security, interest in your role, healthy management practices that value their workforce, etc.) then I agree, it’s in your own self interest to push back because it can effect you directly. Meanwhile a lot of folks have very unhealthy to non-existent relationships with their employers. There may be some mixture where they may be temporary hired/viewed as highly disposable or transient in nature having very little to gain from the success of the business, they may be compensated regardless of success/failure, they may have toxic management who treat them terribly (condescendingly, constantly critical, rarely positive, etc.). Bad and non-existent relationships lead to this sort of behavior. In general we’re moving towards “non-existent” relationships with employers broadly speaking for the labor force. The counter argument is often floated here “well why work there” and the fact is money is necessary to survive, the number of positions available hiring at any given point is finite, and many almost by definition won’t ever be the top performers in their field to the point they truly choose their employers and career paths with full autonomy. So lots of people end up in lots of places that are toxic or highly misaligned with their interests as a survival mechanism. As such, watching the toxic places shoot themselves in the foot can be some level of justice people find where generally unpleasant people finally get to see consequences of their actions and take some responsibility. People will prop others up from their own consequences so long as there’s something in it for them. As you peel that away, at some point there’s a level of poetic justice to watch the situation burn. This is why I’m not convinced having completely transactional relationships with employers is a good thing. Even having self interest and stability in mind, certain levels of toxicity in business management can fester. At some point no amount of money is worth dealing with that and some form of correction is needed there. The only mechanism is to typically assure poor decision making and action is actually held accountable.
weird-eye-issue 1y ago
That's cute, but the maintainers themselves submitted the requests with Copilot.

tantalor 1y ago

> when Microsoft's entire tech stack is on fire Too late?

MonkeyClub 1y ago
Just in time for marshmallows!

hello_computer 1y ago

Might as well when they’re going to lay you off no matter what you do (like the guy who made an awesome TypeScript compiler in Go).

xyst 1y ago

At some point code pilot will just delete the whole codebase. Can’t fail integration tests if there is no code :)

otabdeveloper4 1y ago
That would be logical, but alas LLMs can't into logic. Bloating the codebase with dead code is much more likely.

sbarre 1y ago

I know this is meant to sound witty or clever, but who actually wants to behave this way at their job? I'll never understand the antagonistic "us vs. them" mentality people have with their employer's leadership, or people who think that you should be actively sabotaging things or be "maliciously compliant" when things aren't perfect or you don't agree with some decision that was made. To each their own I guess, but I wouldn't be able to sleep well at night.

nope1000 1y ago
On the other hand: why should you accept that your employer is trying to fire you but first wants you to train the machine that will replace you? For me this is the most "them vs us" it can be.
Hamuko 1y ago
Considering that there's daily employee protests against Microsoft now, probably a lot of Microsoft employees want to behave like that.
Xori71 1y ago
I agree. It doesn’t help that once things start breaking down, the employer will ask the employees to fix the issue themselves, and thus they’ll have to deal with so much broken code that they’ll be miserable. It’ll become a spiral.
- anonymousab 1y ago
  When the issues arise because of the tool being trained explicitly to respect/fire you, then that sounds like an apt and appropriate resulting level of job security.
Frost1x 1y ago
I suppose that depends on your relationship with your employer. If your goals are highly aligned (e.g. lots of equity based compensation, some degree of stability and security, interest in your role, healthy management practices that value their workforce, etc.) then I agree, it’s in your own self interest to push back because it can effect you directly. Meanwhile a lot of folks have very unhealthy to non-existent relationships with their employers. There may be some mixture where they may be temporary hired/viewed as highly disposable or transient in nature having very little to gain from the success of the business, they may be compensated regardless of success/failure, they may have toxic management who treat them terribly (condescendingly, constantly critical, rarely positive, etc.). Bad and non-existent relationships lead to this sort of behavior. In general we’re moving towards “non-existent” relationships with employers broadly speaking for the labor force. The counter argument is often floated here “well why work there” and the fact is money is necessary to survive, the number of positions available hiring at any given point is finite, and many almost by definition won’t ever be the top performers in their field to the point they truly choose their employers and career paths with full autonomy. So lots of people end up in lots of places that are toxic or highly misaligned with their interests as a survival mechanism. As such, watching the toxic places shoot themselves in the foot can be some level of justice people find where generally unpleasant people finally get to see consequences of their actions and take some responsibility. People will prop others up from their own consequences so long as there’s something in it for them. As you peel that away, at some point there’s a level of poetic justice to watch the situation burn. This is why I’m not convinced having completely transactional relationships with employers is a good thing. Even having self interest and stability in mind, certain levels of toxicity in business management can fester. At some point no amount of money is worth dealing with that and some form of correction is needed there. The only mechanism is to typically assure poor decision making and action is actually held accountable.

weird-eye-issue 1y ago

That's cute, but the maintainers themselves submitted the requests with Copilot.