This makes me uncomfortable.

Maybe I’m pessimistic, but I think this just gives micro-managers the data they need to micro-manage you. It invites people to scrutinize the process, instead of the results.

Not once have I wished to review a colleague’s conversation with an AI. I want to review finished work.

I look at this and I can only imagine layoffs being justified with “bad prompt quality”. An incident retrospective broadcasting your agent conversations to the entire company, with people speculating where you should have put the “make no mistakes”.

It’s a shame, really, because I like Zed as an editor, but I can’t bring myself to support them if this is the direction they’re choosing.

The sort of company that would do those things is going to be mandating you to use their enterprise AI plan anyway, which already lets them read all your conversations if they want to.

Not only this. I'm also shuddering at the thought of how much more noise this adds which can only be filtered through LLMs.

Indeed, I want the information between commits for myself, so I see the utility. But I don't want people observing every keystroke.

It's also delusional to think you can find that one edit that was really useful but you forgot to commit but then deleted in another giant commit.

As anyone who's ever tried to split a days worth of work apart with `git add -p` is well aware.

It may be feasible with a million agents, but they could remember what they typed three hours ago anyhow.

The way I’m seeing AI used by organizations is to produce process slop: tickets, summaries, docs, etc. rather than drive process change and optimization, or enable individuals to be more effective within the organization.

I don't know. I've been giving Zed a chance for almost half a year now and it just doesn't seem to be going the way I would want an editor to go.