The move came after 404 Media published an investigation into how Proton CEO Andy Yen was aggressively pushing AI across Proton despite security concerns and the culture of fear he has created.
His words are aggressively out of touch, but I will say that I agree somewhat. I tried going back to handcrafting code for a bit and it really does feel slow. Like, “absolutely no way to compete in the current market” slow.
Slow has nothing to do with pen testing or not. Pen testing is how you validate that the code is secure, AI or no. This is showing a shocking lack of care about security for a company pretending to offer a secure product.
Without the entire slack exchange, it’s not clear whether Andy Yen was responding exclusively to the call for pentesting, or towards broader comments about AI code.
Look I’ll be honest, a CEO telling his workers their (valid) opinions are bullshit and looser thinking is absolutely unacceptable, even putting the context of security (or lack thereof) aside. If you refuse to listen to your engineers as a leadership, you have failed miserably.
I also found the comments pretty inflammatory, which makes me wonder what the engineers had said to get the conversation to that point. I don’t like to make judgement without the full context
Speed is not a good quantifier for industry success. Speed to market might get you some initial customers, but speed alone won’t keep them. If your product is junky, slow, and insecure you are going to lose those customers you had, and potentially open yourself up to lawsuits in the process.
The things that matter more to long term success and sustainability are all the things AI is not.
Proton Mail is already junky and slow yet I bought into the mission. I admit that I was fooled. Subscribed earlier this year until 2028, though, so I’ll be on this sinking ship for a while.
I never said speed was all that mattered. But from my experience, and my other friends in the industry, it is possible to achieve speed while maintaining quality. security, and maintainability. Because these are all things that the AI can look for too. Just look at how many vulnerabilities AI is finding nowadays. Just like any other product manager, you can bring up concerns, ask the AI to look into them, and validate the AI’s claims. Just like you would manage a team of engineers. Which is of course still faster than writing everything yourself.
If all you ask the AI to do is produce lines of code, that’s all it will do. But AI workflows can be far more complex than that.
The quote is talking about how the CEO is scoffing at an engineer asking for a few days for pentesting. None of that has to do with using or not using AI for coding. Doesn’t matter who wrote the code, the management of a privacy first company looking to cut corners on testing for buggy code is a no no for their customers.
Without the whole slack context, the pentesting comment might have been part of a whole chain of comments trying to discredit AI, and the CEO is trying to push for AI. I wouldn’t jump to saying the CEO is against pentesting in general until I had more information
What part of insulting people that wants to take it slow makes sense as a response to a chain of comments discrediting AI? You’re twisting your whole body trying to invent hypotheticals that doesn’t even make sense.
Why are you making yourself look foolish to defend a company you have no financial or personal connection to? Unless you actually do.
Recall that I already mentioned that his comments seemed aggressively out of touch. Insulting your engineers is a bad look.
However, I’m saying that he isn’t necessarily against pentesting, which is what some comments seem to be thinking. I would want to read the whole context to see if that’s what he really believes.
Huh? The frontier model companies aren’t operating at a profit but all the major enterprise tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, Amazon, etc) are using huge amounts of AI in the SDLC and beyond and certainly are operating at a profit…
I’m not sure what you are trying to say, what difference does it make if the users of a product are profitable when the creator of said product isn’t, the users of AI make their money on a diversified portfolio of products, the AI companies are making no profits right now as the subscription prices they are charging are at a loss to gain market share, if they don’t find a sustainable profit margin over time they will have to shut down or increase the cost of the subscription so only a limited number of companies and individuals will be able to afford it. Either way the gushing AI inference taps will stop leaking so freely at some point.
Every single one of those companies reported negative free cash flow this quarter, and some have been running in the negative for a lot longer. The only tech company at that scale NOT losing money hand over fist is Apple, and they’re the only one not investing heavily in AI… but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Microsoft and Salesforce both have very positive free cash flow… but in any case that isn’t profit. All 4 of the companies I listed are still very profitable (Alphabet/google being the one “exception” where they are still wildly profitable but down from q3 2024 vs q3 2026). But even in the Alphabet and Amazon cases, they have negative free cash flow because they are investing like crazy in AI. This doesnt mean they aren’t profitable it means they are using their historic performance to make a big bet on the future. This is fundamentally very different from the frontier lab companies who have never been profitable and are staying afloat mostly from cash injection from big tech (Anthropic is an interesting one that may have just turned the corner).
It’s fine to have moral, labor, or environmental objections to “AI” (which is a very stupid name for some specific applications of machine learning) but I would expect Lemmy to have a higher level of discourse around this stuff that is actually rooted in reality.
as mentioned in another comment, it’s possible to make it secure and maintainable if you manage AI properly. Managing AI is like a product manager managing a team. It’s up to you to push for security and maintainability, but AI can absolutely look for vulnerabilities and holes and code smells if you ask for it.
I don’t think Andy Yen was saying that slower = worse, or that faster is all that matters. My read of the conversation is that engineers were pushing against AI saying that it makes code less secure and maintainable, and Andy was pushing back saying that’s not necessarily the case, that it’s possible to use AI to speed things up while maintaining quality.
In one exchange, an employee in the company’s security Slack channel urged Proton to at least take a few days to pentest newly written code before pushing it live. “That’s bullshit and loser thinking. Of course it’s possible to be fast and secure,” Yen wrote in the channel at the end of August. “Stop thinking always of how to be slower, and focus more on how to be faster.” Yen added, “stop lovingly handcrafting all our code and use AI more.”
Good thing he apologised, yet it still looks that the c-suit still mostly concerned with speed. Apologizing for shitty behaviour is still worse than not being shitty in the first place.
FYI, I don’t think this situation is cause enough to ditch Proton, but I still stand by my original comment.
You might be able to ship a codebase quicker but once it hits a certain level of complexity, you’ll have a codebase that no single human being on your team really understands. You’ll now be forever tied to an ever increasing AI subscription cost
In a capitalist society, yes pretty much. Andy Yen doesn’t have much control over that. As far as I see it, he’s just trying to provide a viable private alternative to Google workspace.
But this is exactly why this is so fucking stupid. Most people didn’t switch to proton because their suite is better than google performance or feature wise. The google apps work just fine. You switch exactly because google is an unethical shit company, that harvests your data on top… If proton adopts the same values why the fuck would I stay with them…
“skill issue” comments are rarely productive. I have many friends that also work in the industry that feel the same, even if they are against AI. I trust their opinions (and my own of course) over yours.
EDIT - and wait, let’s clarify. I NEVER SAID “skill issue”. my implication wasn’t necessarily “it’s because you’re slow”, it was “good things take time”. have some patience.
LLMs erode normal human patience and skills. your skills will thank you for the time you invest.
EDIT 2 - I also work in the industry. you’ve probably used something I helped build. I’m telling you, with the experience to back it up, that you’re only hurting yourself and helping the ruling class.
His words are aggressively out of touch, but I will say that I agree somewhat. I tried going back to handcrafting code for a bit and it really does feel slow. Like, “absolutely no way to compete in the current market” slow.
Slow has nothing to do with pen testing or not. Pen testing is how you validate that the code is secure, AI or no. This is showing a shocking lack of care about security for a company pretending to offer a secure product.
Best of all, that really is something LLMs are quite good at too. Aikido has a feature where you whitebox pentest your entire application.
Without the entire slack exchange, it’s not clear whether Andy Yen was responding exclusively to the call for pentesting, or towards broader comments about AI code.
Look I’ll be honest, a CEO telling his workers their (valid) opinions are bullshit and looser thinking is absolutely unacceptable, even putting the context of security (or lack thereof) aside. If you refuse to listen to your engineers as a leadership, you have failed miserably.
“bullshit and loser thinking” would be inappropriate wording even if the opinions were actually objectively wrong.
I also found the comments pretty inflammatory, which makes me wonder what the engineers had said to get the conversation to that point. I don’t like to make judgement without the full context
No matter the context, someone who can be baited into putting something this obviously unprofessional in writing is not a good leader.
Fair enough, I do agree it’s very unprofessional
Speed is not a good quantifier for industry success. Speed to market might get you some initial customers, but speed alone won’t keep them. If your product is junky, slow, and insecure you are going to lose those customers you had, and potentially open yourself up to lawsuits in the process.
The things that matter more to long term success and sustainability are all the things AI is not.
Proton Mail is already junky and slow yet I bought into the mission. I admit that I was fooled. Subscribed earlier this year until 2028, though, so I’ll be on this sinking ship for a while.
I never said speed was all that mattered. But from my experience, and my other friends in the industry, it is possible to achieve speed while maintaining quality. security, and maintainability. Because these are all things that the AI can look for too. Just look at how many vulnerabilities AI is finding nowadays. Just like any other product manager, you can bring up concerns, ask the AI to look into them, and validate the AI’s claims. Just like you would manage a team of engineers. Which is of course still faster than writing everything yourself.
If all you ask the AI to do is produce lines of code, that’s all it will do. But AI workflows can be far more complex than that.
The quote is talking about how the CEO is scoffing at an engineer asking for a few days for pentesting. None of that has to do with using or not using AI for coding. Doesn’t matter who wrote the code, the management of a privacy first company looking to cut corners on testing for buggy code is a no no for their customers.
Without the whole slack context, the pentesting comment might have been part of a whole chain of comments trying to discredit AI, and the CEO is trying to push for AI. I wouldn’t jump to saying the CEO is against pentesting in general until I had more information
What part of insulting people that wants to take it slow makes sense as a response to a chain of comments discrediting AI? You’re twisting your whole body trying to invent hypotheticals that doesn’t even make sense.
Why are you making yourself look foolish to defend a company you have no financial or personal connection to? Unless you actually do.
Recall that I already mentioned that his comments seemed aggressively out of touch. Insulting your engineers is a bad look.
However, I’m saying that he isn’t necessarily against pentesting, which is what some comments seem to be thinking. I would want to read the whole context to see if that’s what he really believes.
It only feels slow when everyone is forced to use AI, none of these companies have proven to operate at a profit yet
Huh? The frontier model companies aren’t operating at a profit but all the major enterprise tech companies (Google, Microsoft, Salesforce, Amazon, etc) are using huge amounts of AI in the SDLC and beyond and certainly are operating at a profit…
They’re operating at a profit because of their large legacy products, not because of their new stuff.
Example A: Google
Did you even see their earnings miss and what they attributed it to?
I’m not sure what you are trying to say, what difference does it make if the users of a product are profitable when the creator of said product isn’t, the users of AI make their money on a diversified portfolio of products, the AI companies are making no profits right now as the subscription prices they are charging are at a loss to gain market share, if they don’t find a sustainable profit margin over time they will have to shut down or increase the cost of the subscription so only a limited number of companies and individuals will be able to afford it. Either way the gushing AI inference taps will stop leaking so freely at some point.
Every single one of those companies reported negative free cash flow this quarter, and some have been running in the negative for a lot longer. The only tech company at that scale NOT losing money hand over fist is Apple, and they’re the only one not investing heavily in AI… but I’m sure that’s just a coincidence.
Microsoft and Salesforce both have very positive free cash flow… but in any case that isn’t profit. All 4 of the companies I listed are still very profitable (Alphabet/google being the one “exception” where they are still wildly profitable but down from q3 2024 vs q3 2026). But even in the Alphabet and Amazon cases, they have negative free cash flow because they are investing like crazy in AI. This doesnt mean they aren’t profitable it means they are using their historic performance to make a big bet on the future. This is fundamentally very different from the frontier lab companies who have never been profitable and are staying afloat mostly from cash injection from big tech (Anthropic is an interesting one that may have just turned the corner).
It’s fine to have moral, labor, or environmental objections to “AI” (which is a very stupid name for some specific applications of machine learning) but I would expect Lemmy to have a higher level of discourse around this stuff that is actually rooted in reality.
My job is not to be fast. This expectation of development speed is bosses not understanding why they hire specialists.
I code, make sure it works, is secure and maintainable. That’s how I own my work.
as mentioned in another comment, it’s possible to make it secure and maintainable if you manage AI properly. Managing AI is like a product manager managing a team. It’s up to you to push for security and maintainability, but AI can absolutely look for vulnerabilities and holes and code smells if you ask for it.
Yet somehow speed seems all that matters to c-suits.
Coming back to my point: slower ≠ worse.
Can AI speed things up? Oh, yes. Is it really better? It depends, but I’m leaning to no.
I don’t think Andy Yen was saying that slower = worse, or that faster is all that matters. My read of the conversation is that engineers were pushing against AI saying that it makes code less secure and maintainable, and Andy was pushing back saying that’s not necessarily the case, that it’s possible to use AI to speed things up while maintaining quality.
There was a Lemmy post about a Proton employee providing more context for Andy’s statements: https://no.lastname.nz/post/4106893
Good thing he apologised, yet it still looks that the c-suit still mostly concerned with speed. Apologizing for shitty behaviour is still worse than not being shitty in the first place.
FYI, I don’t think this situation is cause enough to ditch Proton, but I still stand by my original comment.
You might be able to ship a codebase quicker but once it hits a certain level of complexity, you’ll have a codebase that no single human being on your team really understands. You’ll now be forever tied to an ever increasing AI subscription cost
which may still be worth it to secure a strong position in the market. You have to look at what competition Proton is facing (Google Workspace)
Hey, the next quarter’s profits is all that matters, eh?
In a capitalist society, yes pretty much. Andy Yen doesn’t have much control over that. As far as I see it, he’s just trying to provide a viable private alternative to Google workspace.
But this is exactly why this is so fucking stupid. Most people didn’t switch to proton because their suite is better than google performance or feature wise. The google apps work just fine. You switch exactly because google is an unethical shit company, that harvests your data on top… If proton adopts the same values why the fuck would I stay with them…
Proton is focused on privacy, anti-AI was not in their initial mission statement.
sounds like a “you” problem
“skill issue” comments are rarely productive. I have many friends that also work in the industry that feel the same, even if they are against AI. I trust their opinions (and my own of course) over yours.
cool. trust your -20 down voted comment
EDIT - and wait, let’s clarify. I NEVER SAID “skill issue”. my implication wasn’t necessarily “it’s because you’re slow”, it was “good things take time”. have some patience.
LLMs erode normal human patience and skills. your skills will thank you for the time you invest.
EDIT 2 - I also work in the industry. you’ve probably used something I helped build. I’m telling you, with the experience to back it up, that you’re only hurting yourself and helping the ruling class.