Deepdives on software engineering, tech careers and industry trends. Writing The Pragmatic Engineer, the #1 technology newsletter on Substack. Author of The Software Engineer's Guidebook.
Pretty validating when months later, mainstream media covers the same trend that I previously analyzed in The Pragmatic Engineer Here is my analysis of extreme hours at AI startups that went out to all The Pragmatic Engineer subscribers, back in August (free article): https://lnkd.in/e7xnZeAP And here is yesterday's WSJ article on the same topic (paywalled): https://lnkd.in/eKkiy2qq And yes, these extreme hours are present, especially in SF... although I'm sensing that there's now a sense of exhaustion across startups that pushed so crazy hard in the summer, and people are burning out, hard (and not producing all that better output!) So I'd expect this approach to swing back to a more sustainable (but still hard-marching) pace, with high-intensity periods. So by the time you’re reading this WSJ article, the trend of 996 seems to be slowly pulling back - at least based on what I am seeing and sensing.
Working overtime is fooling yourself, your team, boss, and your customer.
There was this famous review of Anthropic on GlassDoor that said "I hope this is my last job", which I think explains this attitude quite a lot. Many people expect the next few years will be crucial to define the next generation of Big Tech companies and expect their stock options to pay for all of this.
Lot of nuances here - only few possess these skills and are in places where they are able to do this- GPUs, capital, team mates. People working on the forefront do it not just for money or fame, but they are there to do it. Like in situations of "leadership" - war, covid, firefighting etc. There is a part of benevolence to this work. I hope we acknowledge that too.
Well said. This perfectly illustrates the difference between reporting a trend and understanding its underlying mechanics and costs.
This is the power of your work. You provide the depth and nuance that helps everyone move forward more intelligently.
The investments and expectations are very high. It is getting a bit dicey, as what happens if VCs decide that profits are not as reachable as they thought? I’m starting to think, that probability of AI destroying humanity (as many CEOs of those companies claim is high) is much much lower than a probability of AI bubble destroying our economy.
Haha making discoveries is what makes it exciting
The irony of working with cutting-edge technology that already does the work of a full team of people and still work 3x more that peasants 200 years ago. Maybe it shouldn't be called work, since it's war between companies for domination of cash flows. And the final question should be what is the goal of all the tech progress if quality of life doesn't improve, or even worst, it gets railroaded towards what?
“Lembra que o sono é sagrado e alimenta de horizontes o tempo acordado de viver”. Beto Guedes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpC4UTw_XQ0
CS @ Cycle.io | Build a Private Cloud with Confidence
1dThere's a nuance between grind culture as identity vs intense work as necessity. "We work 12 hour days 6 days a week" as an ethos and having 12 hours of work to do each day as a result of progress, feedback, support, and onboarding. One is a solution looking for a problem, and the other is a problem that needs a solution. If you're in the "AI arms race" working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, you either don't know what problem you're solving or the unit economics of building it in a sustainable way aren't there.