[Barrin92]

>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

[ncruces]

AI and Copilot increase the load on git workflows.

[ahartmetz]

>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]

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

[scrubs]

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

[jwoq9118]

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

[denkmoon]

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.

[kevin_thibedeau]

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

[denkmoon]

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.

[conception]

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.