If they're using the "write lots of mediocore code faster" approach to AI and not the "write better code more slowly" approach, this is a security nightmare.
> I think you're going down a bad route when you start inserting gratuitous insults into your summaries of what other people said.
I'm certain that the multi-trillion dollar company with a history of antisocial and anti-consumer behavior will survive some petty insults.
Though, if people who control purchasing (and/or regulatory) power tend to link increasing use of LLMs and layoffs because "AI means we don't need all those programmers and managers" to substantial and ongoing reductions in quality of the company's software and services, the discussions customers have with MSFT salesfolk may cause the company to "change course", as it were. Intermittent grassroots petty insults are one way to keep folks reminded of the stuff that CEOs and salesfolks would rather you forget.
I don't think you should insert any number of insults into summaries of what other people said. It serves no purpose other than degrading the quality of discussion. If someone posted this comment:
> Satya Nadella says as much as 30% of Microsoft code is written by AI. More like Microslop, haha!
we'd all recognize that the last sentence is pointless name-calling (and thus violates the HN guidelines). But by interleaving the insult, it's easy to trick oneself into thinking that it's meaningful commentary. The quality of HN as a discussion forum requires holding ourselves to a higher standard than that.