The New AI Superpowers: Focus and Followthrough

Got to admit, I stopped reading here.

In my experience, burnout isn't related to the amount of work, but to your confidence in being able to do your job and if you find your job meaningful (like, does it even matter?).

I'm probably doing twice as much work now compared to the period just before I burned out, but I'm also nowhere near a burnout. Part of that is general experience, but it's also because I feel like I know what I'm doing (so, no imposter syndrome) and because I've chosen my job based on what I find meaningful to do (is it ethical? does it make a difference in society? is it interesting?).

I understand why LLM assisted development can lead to burnout. You now have a machine that "does most of the work for you". It's a gateway to questions like "how good are you really at your job?" and "anyone could push these buttons, couldn't they?" and "is this what the rest of my life should be?". It probably also reduces how interesting or fulfilling the job is for many people. You've been reduced to a cog in the machine, and you might be questioning your ability to be anything but.

Now anyone with enough LLM tokens can move quickly and have a pretty proof of concept in front of management in days or maybe hours. There's a land grab to get things in front of management so you can stake your claim on something. The implementation details are assumed to be solvable by enough Claude sessions and ChatGPT prompts.

Where this falls apart is that the real difficult problems don't scale well with LLM brute force techniques. You need people who understand the problem and know how to drive the LLM agents around properly, as well as when to set them aside and go look at the code and data themselves.

The teams who try to brute force everything with LLM tokens can get a little farther every few months, but for complex problems I've seen enough variations of teams hitting a wall of complexity and tech debt with a team that doesn't know much about how their system works because they've just been asking agents to solve every problem as it comes up. With each iteration it takes a little longer for the agents to come to a solution and the system becomes a little more brittle. Even with our current mega-context-window LLMs you can reach a point where every other change to your big ball of code breaks something else, which requires another agent session to diagnose and fix, which might then break another thing down the line. The refactors to try to clean things up end up breaking even more. Having a zillion tests starts to backfire when the team can't tell which tests are testing valid results and which are baking in incorrect results.

Maybe there's an end game where agents get so good that none of this matters, but I think it's more likely that we're going to have to build up better intuitions about what good execution looks like. The old signals of moving fast are meaningly and potentially even negative now.