4 ms·
>It’s existential for us to keep up with the demands of AI and Copilot if by chance the CTO reads this, as a user of GitHub I would find it really existential
by Barrin92 7mo ago
>It’s existential for us to keep up with the demands of AI and Copilot
if by chance the CTO reads this, as a user of GitHub I would find it really existential if GitHub continues functioning as a reliable hub for git workflows (hence the name), and I have the strong suspicion nobody except for the shareholders gives a lick about copilot or 'AI' if it makes the core service the site was designed for unusable
- jwoq9118 7mo agoFor GitHub to remain profitable they have to appease those shareholders you mentioned.
- conception 7mo agoIncorrect. They need to appease/trick/threaten/etc those that are paying for their services. Shareholders just demand they do so at the greatest (often short term) rate.
- denkmoon 7mo agoWhy? What is the correlation between profit and shareholder sentiment (besides the fact that shareholders want said profits)? They don't really influence the operation of the business meaningfully.
- kevin_thibedeau 7mo agoGrowth chart gotta go up. Only chumps run a business that makes a steady return.
- denkmoon 7mo agoSure, but I think it's the wrong way around. Appeasing shareholders doesn't make you profitable, being profitable appeases shareholders. I think there is a wealth of evidence that appeasing shareholders actually impedes profits overall.
- ncruces 7mo agoAI and Copilot increase the load on git workflows.
- ahartmetz 7mo ago>We are absolutely ramming AI and Copilot down people's throats >We do not have enough capacity for AI and Copilot, basic functionality is falling apart Is this sanity or something other than sanity?
- TheNewsIsHere 7mo agoYou’re not supposed to do the math. You’re supposed to nod and say “oh, yes, that makes sense.”
- scrubs 7mo agoAgree. I do not give a cat's whisker about AI for source control. 0.0%. Notta. Nothing.