No company with good engineering leadership should act like this is remotely a good idea.
For example, at more than one company I've worked for, if you wrote shitty code but got it into "testing" faster than anybody else, you are considered a superior programmer. And then, if you fixed the hundreds of bugs found in your code seen as an extraordinary programmer going above and beyond the call of duty.
Management is always measuring the wrong thing.
I assume the execs perspective is something like: if the top 20% of worker produce 80% of the code with LLMs and the company still works then we can get rid of the bottom 80% of devs and save money
But it's just one signal out of many, and more isn't somehow inherently better beyond a certain point.
but looking at the number of people who had taken leave, it suggests otherwise.
You get what you measure.
Everyone is oddly confident despite all of the conflicting explanations.
"I am currently averaging about 10k LOC per day (35% of the lines are tests) so wow, 15k/day is #goals"
Garry Tan - YC CEO and LLM psychosis victim (but he doesn't realise that yet)
