60 hours a week equals to shit work/life balance. 5 days/12 hours, 6 days/10 hours, 7 days/8.5 hours...doesn't mater, they're all bad. Throw in the commute because RTO, and it becomes even worse.
The only time I consistently pulled 60+ hour weeks, was back in my fresh grad years - where I worked 2 years of that, because I knew the work would lead to better opportunities. Should come as no surprise that me, and practically all my other junior colleagues were all under 25, single, and had no kids or family. After two years 90% had moved on to greener pastures, or enrolled MBA program.
In professional fields like finance, consulting, law, etc. it is accepted - precisely because everyone assumes it will only be a 1-2-3 year ordeal. Maybe big tech companies look at it the same way. But it would sure suck to be a dedicated employee that decides to stay, and expected to work those kinds of hours...burnout will come sooner than later.
This is a classic Sergey snark. He is basically saying that number is 60 not 40. (Also diminishing returns does not usually imply "net negative" but less ROI on the marginal hour you put in.)
Point is, Google seems to be somewhat trying to get back their mojo and get rid of their retirement home reputation, at least as far as their AI products are concerned.
Nothing snarky about a guy worth $100 billion telling his minions that they should work for 60 hours per week, instead of the usual 40. Maybe he should remember from what country his parents came and what happened to the billionaires there.
> Maybe he should remember from what country his parents came and what happened to the billionaires there.
I get you don't like the policy (assuming it is even the official policy.) How's this related to having an excited team working on an important project? Are you suggesting there is something wrong with people who work hard on a mission they believe in? How does this tie fates of Russian billionaires in any shape or form? Are Gemini googlers revolting?
> On Wednesday, Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, said the company could lead the industry in artificial general intelligence — when machines match or become smarter than humans — if employees worked harder.
If only these pesky meat machines would work 50% harder for 50% more than fulltime, all the time, he could have his silicone bot that will work 100% of the time.
> “A number of folks work less than 60 hours and a small number put in the bare minimum to get by,” he wrote. “This last group is not only unproductive but also can be highly demoralizing to everyone else.”
I'm reminded of that "CEO work week" chart [0] that shows 55 hours "worked" but 20 hours of it is "Miscellaneous - Travel, exercise, personal appointments, and other activities."
By that standard I think a lot of us could already be putting in CEO hours, we just didn't think to count a bunch of our personal activities as work time.
I’m curious about the amount of time people spend in meetings at these places where they work 60 hours a week. I’ve noticed that meetings at my workplace have become quite excessive. They aren’t always the most productive use of my time, so I end up working extra hours to compensate for the time wasted in meetings.
Do the tech billionaire elite, like Sergey, actually believe that AGI is going to happen any time soon?
Firstly, I don't think it is, so I tend to assume that they're just being hype-guys for staff/investors, but assuming I'm wrong, it seems very weird to suggest that the difference between success or failure in bootstrapping AGI hinges on burning through a generation of AI hires, vs working them at a reasonable pace.
“No punting — we can't keep building nanny products. Our products are overrun with filters and punts of various kinds. We need capable products and [to] trust our users.”
Wow. I posted this link and the feedback is just incredible. It's disappointing to see "Hacker" News so much against hard work. I am sure the Gemini team has pretty much infinite demand for engineers to join, so if someone wants to leave for other teams or companies that should be fine for them.
This feedback indeed substantiate Sergey's point that such bare-minimum people really do destroy the morale for everyone else. I certainly would have felt that had I were at Google on a critical exciting project that the company deeply cared about to the degree that a founder was actively participating in.
If the ship sinks to irrelevance, it will sink for all Googlers. In fact, the top billionaire will be the least affected.
If I’m given exciting work to do, and management reduces beurocracies and other blockers, I’ll work 60, 70, 80 hour weeks. If my job is as a glorified paper pusher because of bad procrssses/management I won’t.
It’s a leaders job to motivate people to work those hours, and create an environment where it is worthwhile, to just say “work more” sounds like he thinks management doesn’t have a role to play.
In fact almost definition ally, if you’re people aren’t working enough, that’s a management failure. So who is he telling?
Sure, but you start from somewhere. Part of that leadership and creating that environment is signaling and setting expectations. To let the people know what kind of team it is going to be and have them self-select, especially if the starting point is default Google rest-and-vest.
What do you mean by "us"? Did you get that email? I'm sure you can argue that with your manager if you did and you feel your comp is not warranted. I'm confident the Gemini team is well compensated and they'll probably match their comp if they bring a competing offer.
P.S. I am quite confident if any of those people join OpenAI or Meta, they have to easily work at least 2x Google. At least.
Nobody is against hard work, but what's the point of working harder than you need to for a company that has shown that hard work is no defense against being laid off?
We have one life to live. Most people would rather not spend the bulk of that precious life being wage slaves whose hard work does little more than produce technology that is marginally beneficial to society and that primarily serves to massively enrich a few people off their hard labor.
If you find yourself aligning with billionaires making completely unreasonable demands, unless you are one of those billionaires yourself, I think you are fully drinking the kool aid and should seriously reevaluate your life .
The only time I consistently pulled 60+ hour weeks, was back in my fresh grad years - where I worked 2 years of that, because I knew the work would lead to better opportunities. Should come as no surprise that me, and practically all my other junior colleagues were all under 25, single, and had no kids or family. After two years 90% had moved on to greener pastures, or enrolled MBA program.
In professional fields like finance, consulting, law, etc. it is accepted - precisely because everyone assumes it will only be a 1-2-3 year ordeal. Maybe big tech companies look at it the same way. But it would sure suck to be a dedicated employee that decides to stay, and expected to work those kinds of hours...burnout will come sooner than later.