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.
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.
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.