“These re-interviews are consequential,” a leaked email seen by 404 Media reads.
  • hansolo@lemmy.todayEnglish
    12·
    20 hours ago

    If you read the Proton response to this article, it actually does seem like trying to figure out what’s going on with business process in a big picture way. Senior managers are interviewing, too. Not all staff are interviewing.

    Personally, I think it’s just as much about seeing who can’t QC the slop out off their code as anything else. Maybe. Or maybe I’m wrong, I dunno.

      • hansolo@lemmy.todayEnglish
        1·
        4 hours ago

        Imagine being so disillusioned with the world that you assume that no one can have an opinion and think critically about two opposing views without it necessarily being some corporate brand fanboy bullshit.

        • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          11 hours ago

          No, they have a for profit company and a nonprofit entity that is a major shareholder. They operate just like a corporation with all the typical warts.

    • Victor@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      9 hours ago

      How about don’t use AI to begin with so you won’t have to weed anyone out due to “potential slop”.

      Edit: this is in response to the parent comment, not to Proton…

      • hansolo@lemmy.todayEnglish
        1·
        4 hours ago

        If you haven’t used it professionally, LLMs can and do provide huge help. Making this a specially all or nothing argument only highlights a knowledge and experience gap on the part of someone making that argument.

        Buuuuut, only an idiot asks for anything better than a starting point or a check of existing work. People relying on it to produce whole cloth work is for hobbyists and sloppers that don’t care or know any better.

        You ask why they need to use LLMs at all, and they host their own, Lumo. What clear, financially solid argument can you make that LLMs are an objective net negative to every company? If they see benefits from a headstart on coding and ability to test their security, why demand they take that away when no human code is 100% perfect anyway?

      • Reygle@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        18 hours ago

        I fear you may misunderstand their goal here- direct quote:

        “We need people who can translate AI’s capabilities into better products, stronger execution, and new ways of working — and who approach this change with curiosity, judgment, and urgency,” the email reads.

        They specifically want to “weed out” the ones who ARE NOT using AI