[0x3f]

I think we're probably seeing Goodhart's law in action here.

There have been a few CEOs announcing that 'X% of our code is now written by AI', where X is some totally non-credible number to anyone that has used an LLM for this purpose.

But if you attach consequences to not using AI, engineers are just going to give AI more credit for the end product, no matter how true that is.

Being a ruthless, unforgiving parent only makes your children better at hiding things.

[jqpabc123]

...engineers are just going to give AI more credit

Nice idea but I don't think it will work for very long.

This CEO's real objective is a significant cost reduction from the magic "coder in a box". Just giving it credit won't achieve this.

Those who were afforded the opportunity to work for a different CEO may not realize it yet but things may ultimately turn out in their favor.

[0x3f]

Oh, yeah, I mean that's what happens in the short term. Long term, I suspect it's either a quiet climb down from his current position, or a complete engineering disaster for the company if he's unwilling to do so.

At least the interim lying buys him more time to accept reality. If AI starts actually writing 50% of the code, I assume it asymptotically tends towards a codebase that no human beings actually want to work on.