Jagerbizzle

I've worked with a number of people who were like this at MSFT. They've all been laid off.

I'm a Microsoft employee who historically would have probably taken this offer. For now I agree with your take: why bother taking this when I can just instead take the inevitable layoff in the next 3-9 months.

Who has time to design things these days?

We’ve already stopped bothering with human reviews where I’m at.

As someone that has revived and started maintaining an internal code review tool, I'm very interested in reading more about Antique.

I could still do my job by typing all code into notepad, but companies don't charge employees for their IDE usage for a reason.

Likely not for long now that I've taken a glance at the other headlines on this site...

Replying here without having read any of the sub-replies so I apologize if this is a repeated theme.

I have explicit markdown about telling the model to not write comments. "Every time you consider writing a comment, instead consider re-writing the code that questioned you to write said comment to begin with. Write comments only when logic is complicated or unclear, otherwise 'comment' via naming."

The results thus far have been much better.

I'm seeing code reviews at my work where indeed, we have 10 line comment blocks for a line of code and now I just straight up don't read comments.

Sad state of affairs -- (emdash deliberately used here) but I guess the sooner the human gets out of the loop the better in this new world.

"leveraging their infra" is a pretty solid play, considering the scope of investments these two companies have made thus far.

Fantastic post. This sums up my experience perfectly with a near identical time frame to yours.

I believe you’re confusing access with outcomes. Giving people access to markets isn’t exploitation afaic.

If you’d like to make dubious trades that’s your prerogative and who am I to stop you.

I'm with you on this one, having "vibe coded" some smaller internal tools on GPT 5, and then re-vibed it on Opus 4.6 and 5.5 -- they basically just fixed all of the problems without me doing much of anything other than prompting it to look at the existing code and make it "better".

Captains can't decide to substitute/bench one of their teammates in the middle of a game.

I answered this in a different comment below, but a lot of the friction is around the amount of time it takes to test/review/submit etc, and a lot of this is centered around tooling that no one has had the time to improve, perf problems in clunky processes that have been around longer than anyone individual, and other things of this nature. Addressing these issues is now approachable and doable in one's "spare time".