uhhhd
It seems like the pattern is almost always the same: the ethics team exists quietly in the background, and the only time anyone hears about them is when they either publicly leave the company or start a campaign against it.
So what exactly is the business case? Is it actually worth maintaining an ethics function just to be able to say you have one, when the only time it becomes visible is when it goes against the company publicly? And if this outcome is so predictable, why do companies keep hiring these people in the first place?
Tools like git and jj exist to help humans manage state: branches, commits, rebases, conflicts, history curation. That whole model assumes a human is directly manipulating and reasoning about the codebase.
With LLMs in the loop, that assumption breaks. I don’t need to think in terms of branches or commits. I describe intent, and the model handles the mechanics of editing, reconciling, and producing a coherent result. Source control becomes an implementation detail of the toolchain, not something I actively operate.
jj is an improvement over git for humans, but that’s exactly why it feels like a local maximum. It refines a workflow that is already being abstracted away.
I’m not saying version control disappears. I’m saying it moves down a layer, the same way memory management or instruction scheduling did. When that happens, optimizing the human interface to it matters a lot less.
When LLMs are driving development, source control stops being an active cognitive concern and becomes a passive implementation detail. The unit of work is no longer “branches” or “commits,” it’s intent. You describe what you want, the model generates, refactors, and reconciles changes across parallel streams automatically.
Parallel workstreams used to require careful coordination: rebasing, merging, conflict resolution, mental bookkeeping of state. That overhead existed because humans were the bottleneck. Once an LLM is managing the codebase, it can reason over the entire state space continuously and resolve those conflicts as part of generation, not as a separate step.
In that world, tools like jj are optimizing a layer that’s already being abstracted away. It’s similar to how no one optimizes around assembly anymore. It still exists, it still matters at a lower level, but it’s no longer where productivity is gained.
This comment was generated by chatgpt (inspired by me).
Key Allegations: 1. Hostile Environment: The complaint describes a campus atmosphere where pro-Hamas students and faculty have organized demonstrations featuring antisemitic slogans and calls for violence against Jews and Israel. These protests have reportedly disrupted classes and occupied campus spaces, creating an environment of fear and intimidation for Jewish students. 2. Administrative Inaction: Despite numerous complaints and reports of antisemitic incidents, the university administration is accused of failing to take appropriate disciplinary actions against perpetrators. The plaintiffs argue that this inaction amounts to deliberate indifference, exacerbating the hostile environment. 3. Double Standards: The lawsuit claims that Harvard enforces its anti-discrimination policies selectively, protecting other minority groups while neglecting the safety and rights of Jewish students. This alleged inconsistency is presented as evidence of institutional bias. 4. Faculty Conduct: Certain faculty members are accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric in their teachings and public statements, further contributing to the hostile climate on campus. 5. Failure to Uphold Policies: The plaintiffs contend that Harvard has not adhered to its own stated policies on discrimination and harassment, thereby breaching contractual obligations to its students.
Legal Claims: • Violation of Title VI: The university is accused of failing to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, as mandated by federal law. • Breach of Contract: By not enforcing its anti-discrimination policies, Harvard is alleged to have breached its contractual commitments to provide a safe educational environment. • Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing: The plaintiffs argue that the university’s actions, or lack thereof, violate the fundamental expectations of fairness and protection owed to students.