Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

>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

View on HN

AI and Copilot increase the load on git workflows.

>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?

You’re not supposed to do the math. You’re supposed to nod and say “oh, yes, that makes sense.”

Agree. I do not give a cat's whisker about AI for source control. 0.0%. Notta. Nothing.

For GitHub to remain profitable they have to appease those shareholders you mentioned.

Incorrect. 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.

Why? 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.

Growth chart gotta go up. Only chumps run a business that makes a steady return.

Sure, 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com