Transcript
A post by [object Object] (@zzt@mas.to) saying:
courtesy of @davidgerard@circumstances.run, Proton is now the only privacy vendor I know of that vibe codes its apps:
In the single most damning thing I can say about Proton in 2025, the Proton GitHub repository has a “cursorrules” file. They’re vibe-coding their public systems. Much secure!
I am once again begging anyone who will listen to get off of Proton as soon as reasonably possible, and to avoid their new (terrible) apps in any case. https://circumstances.run/@davidgerard/114961415946154957
It has a reply by the author saying: in an unsurprising update for those familiar with how Proton operates, they silently rewrote their monorepo’s history to purge .cursor and hide that they were vibe coding: https://github.com/ProtonMail/WebClients/tree/2a5e2ad4db0c84f39050bf2353c944a96d38e07f
given the utter lack of communication from Proton on this, I can only guess they’ve extracted .cursor into an external repository and continue to use it out of sight of the public
https://arstechnica.com/ai/2025/07/study-finds-ai-tools-made-open-source-software-developers-19-percent-slower/
Uh, idk how they got that number. It goes against the observations of literally everyone in the industry, so maybe it's not the industry that is biased, but the benchmark they did is incorrect?
Like just several sprints before I've saved my team by generating proto contracts taking backend repo as a context, as backend was busy with other higher important things to unblock us. No AI here means we would be blocked full stop for the entire sprint. And when backend did generate the contract, it was almost identical, and the diff in contracts allowed to identify the issue in the entities they send.
True, some tasks can be done faster without AI, because you have the context and the amount of code volume is actually fairly low.
But
My brother in Christ, in big enterprise project chances that you have some familiarity with the code, well, they are non-zero, but also not that high.
Scientific study vs anecdotal data, that's what studies are supposed to be, the formalisation and distillation of data into conclusions based on said data.
Possibly, do you know how that's normally tested ?
Anecdote, from a single person.
I don't doubt that that is your experience, but it's just that, your experience.
and before you bring out the "but everyone i know all says the same", that's still anecdotal, it's what anecdotal means.
I mean, sure ? i'm not sure how that is relevant though.
As i said, the one study i've seen is somewhat flimsy....
Do you have literally any other study to backup any claims to the contrary?
My original comment was in response to :
That might be true, but for it to be applicable the productivity boost needs to be real, and for public claims to be taken seriously, provably real.
That you, personally, think you are seeing this is great, works for you.
We have a POC group and everyone I've spoken that tried the tool reports productivity boost. So it's either that everyone is under impression they've boosted their productivity, while they didn't, or everyone actually did boost their productivity. And I find the later to be more likely, because there is no reason for these people to lie.
"We have a and everyone I’ve spoken to that tried the reports "
Again, i'm not doubting your understanding the experience of you or your acquaintances, i'm saying its anecdotal, a vanishingly small sample size and not necessarily indicative of a general position.