Post

"I'm okay with using LLMs for the sake of the team's work-life balance" is a really insidious thing to say because no tool (however effective) can give you work-life balance. Work-life balance comes from good boundaries, appropriate headcount, clear responsibilities, and realistic scheduling.

190 reposts849 likes

If you're telling me that if not for the alleged efficiencies gained by using LLMs, your team would be crunching? What that says is that you're failing to address crunch because you're trying to limit workload at the edges instead of systemically preventing it.

Work-life-balance is when you have an alarm set up for 2 am and 4 am to check on your agents, on a weekend, so they’re not bringing production down (like the last time you let them run unsupervised). 👍

Even without tech innovations, if a boss realizes they can get you to do the work of two people, they will do so. Even in a job that requires manual labor, if they find out you work hard, they will keep adding more work until you either quit, get injured, or are barely able to do all you have.

Something actively harming the planet can never be "for the sake of" the worker. What's the point of "work-life balance" if there's nothing left to enjoy? Nothing is free. We cannot cheat our way to better capitalism. Just as you said, it's moreso hinging on the ethos of the company itself.