Welp. I've been using GitLab for over a decade and have been pretty happy with it. Deployed and maintained several instances, some personal, some for small hobby orgs, some for work.

But it looks like it is time to ditch GitLab for good:

> Software will be built by machines, directed by people. AI is the substrate on which future software gets built. Agents will plan, code, review, deploy, and repair.
https://about.gitlab.com/blog/gitlab-act-2/

#GitLab #AI #FuckAI #SoftwareDevelopment

GitLab Act 2

A letter to our customers and our investors.

about.gitlab.com

Software has been "built by machines, directed by people" for decades.

That's what compilers and linkers do, that's what uncountable lines of Bash and endless CI/CD pipelines are – machines building software, directed by people.

And for decades, the bottleneck has not been churning out code. It was code review, it was quality control, it was bug fixing. AI slop makes that *worse*, not better:
https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/89367

GitLab, and the rest of the industry, is solving for the wrong problem.

If No One Pays for Proof, Everyone Will Pay for the Loss

This post was initially written in French, Si personne ne paie pour la preuve, tout le monde paiera pour le sinistre Let’s start with a truism. In ordinary life, just as in economic life, we have to make decisions without ever knowing everything. Every decision involves some uncertainty, and therefore some risk. Some risks are … Continue reading If No One Pays for Proof, Everyone Will Pay for the Loss →

Freakonometrics

The outcome of this will be *worse* software.

It will feel even more plastic, it will be even more brittle, and it's not because we don't know how to write better, more reliable software, but because the industry decided that writing better software is not how money is made.

And GitLab just went all-in, announced to the world: we're here for plastic software, we're here for shit quality code, we're here for forcing people to review unreviewable slop and then blaming them for the bugs.

The push for this is about labor, and is about power. CEOs all around the world have wet dreams of never having to pay people ever again. Of never having to hire people.

Slaves would be good though.

And AI "agents" is the closest CEOs can get to slaves. The next closest thing are employees that are too terrified of getting fired to stand up for themselves.

No surprise, then, that in this same blogpost, in the same breath, GitLab's CEO announced layoffs.

GitLab's CEO writes:
> Humans still own the judgment that matters most: architecture, deep understanding of the customer problem, the tradeoffs that require taste.

I hold judgement over this decision.

I see it as a symptom of lack of understanding of how good software is actually built. And of greed, directed by the hype train and FOMO.

And I find this blogpost, and the whole idea of pushing slop generators tasteless.

And if you've read that far and you're in IT, I have one word for you: unionize. ✊
@rysiek was a union man before I got into IT, and will be a union man when they put me in the ground.

@rysiek Which is in stark contrast to some developers commentary, elsewhere and on here, about *waves hands all over* the situation: "we'll just have to wait and see what happens"

Wait for what? I don't know how many times I've worked with folks and their default behavior is "We'll just have to let the bad thing keep happening and maybe management will realize the problem". It only gets worse.

If they have an audience/platform, clout, or money _they should be pushing people to unionize_.

@rysiek go back to movements? Pre Bill Gates patent trolling assholery.
@rysiek That's the opposite of doing ionisation for me. ​
@diffie where's that spray bottle I had here somewhere

@rysiek "Humans still own the judgment" translates to "when the stochastic parrot we forced you to use screws up, you're the one getting fired, not us".

@zzt

@rysiek in other words: they are an accountability sink.
The volume will far exceed the capacity for accurate judgement, this will lead to approving bad things, for which they will be blamed for sure
@rysiek The tool vs. replacement debate depends entirely on who holds the tool and why. In some fields AI is genuinely assistive. In others it's clearly a cost-cutting excuse. The difference is intent. 🤔

@tanyelcakmak I would wager a bet that in the fields where it is genuinely assistive it is mostly referred to by other, more specific terms than "AI".

And in the case of this blogpost and all the "AI layoffs", it is not even directly a cost cutting tool, but as I noted earlier in the thread, a tool to change power dynamics in the workplace and a tool to cover for previous bad decisions of the management (for example, over-hiring during COVID, so laying folks off now).

@rysiek Exactly — in my field we never say 'AI'. It's always the specific method: simulation, optimisation, pattern recognition. 'AI' as a term lives mostly in the hype layer.
And the layoff point is sharp. The tool is the excuse, not the cause.

@rysiek

More than this, they also want it to be impossible to create software without renting all the tools from a capitalist.

They're trying to end the era of anyone being able to ship software using cheap commodity hardware and free tools.

Even nastier assumption: they’re okay with having some programmer employees who will always take the fall in lawsuits.

@svavar @rysiek

@svavar @rysiek Impossible to use without renting as well. Endlessly brittle, hard to maintain software means you need constant bugfixes, which means permanent subscription fees. Once upon a time you could buy software on a CD and keep using that same version for a decade or more. They *want* something different broken every month so you have to keep paying them to "fix" it.
@rysiek Codeberg for the people! The ability for technologists to jump ship and build their own distributed platforms scares the shit out of big tech.