misk

Mirror: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/rHqPf

"We have data on the performance of >50k engineers from 100s of companies. ~9.5% of software engineers do virtually nothing: Ghost Engineers.”

Last week, a tweet by Stanford researcher Yegor Denisov-Blanch went viral within Silicon Valley. “We have data on the performance of >50k engineers from 100s of companies,” he tweeted. “~9.5% of software engineers do virtually nothing: Ghost Engineers.”

Denisov-Blanch said that tech companies have given his research team access to their internal code repositories (their internal, private Githubs, for example) and, for the last two years, he and his team have been running an algorithm against individual employees’ code. He said that this automated code review shows that nearly 10 percent of employees at the companies analyzed do essentially nothing, and are handsomely compensated for it. There are not many details about how his team’s review algorithm works in a paper about it, but it says that it attempts to answer the same questions a human reviewer might have about any specific segment of code, such as:

• “How difficult is the problem that this commit solves?
• How many hours would it take you to just write the code in this commit assuming you could fully focus on this task?
• How well structured is this source code relative to the previous commits? Quartile within this list
• How maintainable is this commit?”

Ghost Engineers, as determined by his algorithm, perform at less than 10 percent of the median software engineer (as in, they are measured as being 10 times worse/less productive than the median worker).

Denisov-Blanch wrote that tens of thousands of software engineers could be laid off and that companies could save billions of dollars by doing so. “It is insane that ~9.5 percent of software engineers do almost nothing while collecting paychecks,” Denisov-Blanch tweeted. “This unfairly burdens teams, wastes company resources, blocks jobs for others, and limits humanity’s progress. It has to stop.”

The Stanford research has not yet been published in any form outside of a few graphs Denisov-Blanch shared on Twitter. It has not been peer reviewed. But the fact that this sort of analysis is being done at all shows how much tech companies have become focused on the idea of “overemployment,” where people work multiple full-time jobs without the knowledge of their employers and its focus on getting workers to return to the office. Alongside Denisov-Blanch’s project, there has been an incredible amount of investment in worker surveillance tools. (Whether a ~9.5 percent rate of workers not being effective is high is hard to say; it's unclear what percentage of workers overall are ineffective, or what other industry's numbers look like).

Over the weekend, a post on the r/sysadmin subreddit went viral both there and on the r/overemployed subreddit. In that post, a worker said they had just sat through a sales pitch from an unnamed workplace surveillance AI company that purports to give employees “red flags” if their desktop sits idle for “more than 30-60 seconds,” which means “no ‘meaningful’ mouse and keyboard movement,” attempts to create “productivity graph” based on computer behavior, and pits workers against each other based on the time it takes to complete specific tasks. 

What is becoming clear is that companies are becoming obsessed with catching employees who are underperforming or who are functionally doing nothing at all, and, in a job market that has become much tougher for software engineers, are feeling emboldened to deploy new surveillance tactics. 

“In the past, engineers wielded a lot of power at companies. If you lost your engineers or their trust or demotivated the team—companies were scared shitless by this possibility,” Denisov-Blanch told 404 Media in a phone interview. “Companies looked at having 10-15 percent of engineers being unproductive as the cost of doing business.”

Denisov-Blanch and his colleagues published a paper in September outlining an “algorithmic model” for doing code reviews that essentially assess software engineer worker productivity. The paper claims that their algorithmic code assessment model “can estimate coding and implementation time with a high degree of accuracy,” essentially suggesting that it can judge worker performance as well as a human code reviewer can, but much more quickly and cheaply. 

I asked Denisov-Blanch if he thought his algorithm was scooping up people whose work contributions might not be able to be judged by code commits and code analysis alone. He said that he believes the algorithm has controlled for that, and that companies have told him specific workers who should be excluded from analysis because their job responsibilities extend beyond just pushing code. 

“Companies are very interested when we find these people [the ghost engineers] and we run it by them and say ‘it looks like this person is not doing a lot, how does that fit in with their job responsibilities?’” Denisov-Blanch said. “They have to launch a low-key investigation and sometimes they tell us ‘they’re fine,’ and we can exclude them. Other times, they’re very surprised.”

He said that the algorithm they have developed attempts to analyze code quality in addition to simply analyzing the number of commits (or code pushes) an engineer has made, because number of commits is already a well-known performance metric that can easily be gamed by pushing meaningless updates or pushing then reverting updates over and over. “Some people write empty lines of code and do commits that are meaningless,” he said. “You would think this would be caught during the annual review process, but apparently it isn’t. We started this research because there was no good way to use data in a scalable way that’s transparent and objective around your software engineering team.”

Much has been written about the rise of “overemployment” during the pandemic, where workers take on multiple full-time remote jobs and manage to juggle them. Some people have realized that they can do a passable enough job at work in just a few hours a day or less. 

“I have friends who do this. There’s a lot of anecdotal evidence of people doing this for years and getting away with it. Working two, three, four hours a day and now there’s return-to-office mandates and they have to have their butt in a seat in an office for eight hours a day or so,” he said. “That may be where a lot of the friction with the return-to-office movement comes from, this notion that ‘I can’t work two jobs.’ I have friends, I call them at 11 am on a Wednesday and they’re sleeping, literally. I’m like, ‘Whoa, don’t you work in big tech?’ But nobody checks, and they’ve been doing that for years.”

Denisov-Blanch said that, with massive tech layoffs over the last few years and a more difficult job market, it is no longer the case that software engineers can quit or get laid off and get a new job making the same or more money almost immediately. Meta and X have famously done huge rounds of layoffs to its staff, and Elon Musk famously claimed that X didn’t need those employees to keep the company running. When I asked Denisov-Blanch if his algorithm was being used by any companies in Silicon Valley to help inform layoffs, he said: “I can’t specifically comment on whether we were or were not involved in layoffs [at any company] because we’re under strict privacy agreements.”

The company signup page for the research project, however, tells companies that the “benefits of participation” in the project are “Use the results to support decision-making in your organization. Potentially reduce costs. Gain granular visibility into the output of your engineering processes.”

Denisov-Blanch said that he believes “very tactile workplace surveillance, things like looking at keystrokes—people are going to game them, and it creates a low trust environment and a toxic culture.” He said with his research he is “trying to not do surveillance,” but said that he imagines a future where engineers are judged more like salespeople, who get commission or laid off based on performance. 

“Software engineering could be more like this, as long as the thing you’re building is not just counting lines or keystrokes,” he said. “With LLMs and AI, you can make it more meritocratic.”

Denisov-Blanch said he could not name any companies that are part of the study but said that since he posted his thread, “it has really resonated with people,” and that many more companies have reached out to him to sign up within the last few days.

On Monday, X filed an objection in The Onion’s bid to buy InfoWars out of bankruptcy. In the objection, Elon Musk’s lawyers argued that X has “superior ownership” of all accounts on X, that it objects to the inclusion of InfoWars and related Twitter accounts in the bankruptcy auction, and that the court should therefore prevent the transfer of them to The Onion. 

The legal basis that X asserts in the filing is not terribly interesting. But what is interesting is that X has decided to involve itself at all, and it highlights that you do not own your followers or your account or anything at all on corporate social media, and it also highlights the fact that Elon Musk’s X is primarily a political project he is using to boost, or stifle, specific viewpoints and help his friends. In the filing, X’s lawyers essentially say—like many other software companies, and, increasingly, device manufacturers as well—that the company’s terms of service grant X’s users a “license” to use the platform but that, ultimately, X owns all accounts on the social network and can do anything that it wants with them.

“Few bankruptcy courts have addressed the issue of ownership of social media accounts, and those courts that have were focused on whether an individual or the individual’s employer owned an account used for business purposes—not whether the social media company had a superior right of ownership over either the individual or the corporation,” Musk’s lawyers write. 

The case Musk’s lawyers are referencing here is Vital Pharm’s bankruptcy case, in which a supplement company filed for bankruptcy and the court decided that the Twitter and Instagram accounts @BangEnergyCEO, which were primarily used by its CEO Jack Owoc to promote the brand, were owned by the company, not Owoc. The court determined that the accounts were therefore part of the bankruptcy and could not be kept by Owoc.

Except in exceedingly rare circumstances like the Vital Pharm case, the transfer of social media accounts in bankruptcy from one company to another has been routine. When VICE was sold out of bankruptcy, its new owners, Fortress Investment Group, got all of VICE’s social media accounts and YouTube pages. X, Google, Meta, etc did not object to this transfer because this sort of thing happens constantly and is not controversial. (It should be noted that social media companies regularly do try to prevent the sale of social media accounts on the black market. But they do not usually attempt to block the sale of them as part of the sale of companies or in bankruptcy.)

But in this InfoWars case, X has decided to inject itself into the bankruptcy proceedings. Jones has signaled that Musk has done this in order to help him, and his tweet about it has gone incredibly viral. On a stream of his show after the filing, Jones called this “a major breaking Monday evening news alert that deals with the First Amendment and the people's fight to reclaim our country from the clutches of the globalists.”

"Elon Musk X Corp entered the case with a lawsuit within it to defend the right of X to not have private handles of people like Alex Jones stripped away. It violates the 13th Amendment against slavery, there are many issues. Today they filed a major brief in the case,” Jones said. “Elon Musk’s X comes to Alex Jones’ defense against democrat attempts to steal Jones’ X identity.”

Musk famously unbanned Jones, then appeared on the same Twitter Spaces broadcast with him. Musk has also tweeted occasionally that he believes The Onion is not funny. Jones, meanwhile, has been ranting and raving about some sort of conspiracy that he believes led a judge via the Deep State to sell InfoWars to The Onion at auction. 

X calls itself “the sole owner” of X accounts, and states that it “does not consent” to the sale of the InfoWars accounts, as doing so would “undermine X Corp.’s rightful ownership of the property it licenses to Free Speech Systems [InfoWars], Jones, or any other account holder on the X platform.” Again, X accounts are transferred in bankruptcy all the time with no drama and with no objection from X.

“Looming over the framework [in the Vital Pharm case] was the undeniable reality that social media companies, like X Corp., are the only parties that have truly exclusive control over users’ accounts,” the lawyers write. “X CORP. OWNS THE X ACCOUNTS.”

That a corporate social media company says it owns the social media accounts on its service is probably not surprising. Meta, Twitter, Google, LinkedIn, and ByteDance have run up astronomical valuations by more or getting people to fill their platforms with content for free, and have created and destroyed countless businesses, business models, and industries with their constantly-shifting algorithms and monetization strategies. But to see this fact outlined in such stark terms in a court document makes clear that, for human beings to seize any sort of control over their online lives, we must move toward decentralized, portable forms of social media and must move back toward creating and owning our own platforms and websites.