我为质子付了很多年钱，404 Media发表调查质子领导如何将AI推向公司内部。 制作这些回合的细节来自安全Slack频道：一名工程师要求几天在发货前对新代码进行笔试，CEO安迪·延回答说这是"胡说八道和失败者的想法"，然后告诉团队停止爱心的手工代码，更多使用AI.
我第一次不确定还会推荐他们。
许多反应将此视为AI故事，仿佛AI写作的代码毒害了井，我认为这忽略了重点。 工程师使用AI来写代码是新的规范。 只要周围有护栏
报告所描述的是一位首席执行官在同事面前告诉一位工程师，提出安全关切是“迷信”。 工作人员被告知他们的AI用法可以决定他们是否保留工作，当这个计划泄露后被放弃时，Yen 称已经达到了其目的。 这些都不是关于AI的。 许多公司正在推出agents的编码
质子的取舍无法实现
对大多数公司来说，以某种谨慎换取速度是一个合理的呼吁。 质子是一个隐私公司，虽然，并且它的用户付出的是信心人们建设它是谨慎的。 船运要慢慢小心，B2B供应商的不良释放可能是灾难性的，但对于质子这样的公司来说，暴露用户邮件的bug是致命的。
在Reddit上为公司辩护的一位雇员加入了一些旨在提供帮助的背景：只要管道不减速
这是少数冒充勇敢异议的雇员之一，但实际上同意了官方的公司线。 它的读法像是星际迷航以及危机管理的笨拙尝试。 在Reddit上共享的员工中，没有一个员工对事情的处理方式或公司走向有异议。
在笨拙之外，显示是一个领导者，现在它把使质子值得付出的限制因素当作减慢它的东西。
我仍希望继续推荐质子，但这取决于工程师要求再做几天测试
本文由 AI图鉴自动抓取并翻译，版权归原作者所有；如需查看原文请点下方链接。
I’ve been paying for Proton for many years, and it’s what I recommend when someone asks how to get off Gmail. This week 404 Media published an investigation into how Proton’s leadership is pushing AI inside the company. The detail that made the rounds came from the security Slack channel: an engineer asked for a few days to pentest new code before shipping it, and CEO Andy Yen answered that it was “bullshit and loser thinking”, then told the team to stop lovingly handcrafting code and use AI more.
For the first time, I’m not sure I’d still recommend them.
A lot of the reactions treat this as an AI story, as if any AI-written code poisons the well, and I think that misses the point. Engineers using AI to write code is the new norm. It’s fine as long as there are guardrails around it: someone reviews what the model produced, it gets tested, and someone is accountable for what ships.
What the reporting describes is a CEO telling an engineer, in front of colleagues, that raising a security concern was “loser thinking”. Staff were told their AI usage could decide whether they kept their jobs, and when that plan was dropped after it leaked, Yen said it had already served its purpose. None of this is about AI. Plenty of companies are rolling out coding agents right now without humiliating anyone, so if Proton can’t, the problem sits with its leadership.
The tradeoff Proton can’t make
For most companies, trading some caution for speed is a reasonable call. Proton is a privacy company, though, and what its users pay for is the confidence that the people building it are careful. Shipping slowly and carefully is part of what they’re selling. A bad release from a B2B vendor can be catastrophic, but for a company like Proton, a bug that exposes users’ mail would be fatal.
One of the employees defending the company on Reddit added some context that was meant to help: Yen was fine with pentesting, as long as it didn’t slow down the pipeline.
This is one of a few employees pretending to courageously dissent, but in reality agreeing with the official corporate line. It reads like astroturfing and a clumsy attempt at crisis management. No employee who shared on Reddit disagrees with how things were handled or with where the company is going.
Beyond the clumsiness, it shows a leadership that now treats the constraints that made Proton worth paying for as the thing slowing it down.
I’d like to keep recommending Proton, but that depends on the engineer asking for a few more days of testing still winning the argument against a leadership obsessed with velocity and arbitrary release dates.
Auto-fetched and translated by AI Atlas. All rights belong to the original author.