AI Engineer Europe 2026
Software Engineering + AI = ?
Read the talk
Software Engineering + AI: Usage, Output, and the Work Between
Token counts can reward busywork even as coding agents change who can build software, what engineers own, and where companies invest in infrastructure.
From a talk by Gergely Orosz and swyx
When AI usage becomes a performance proxy
Should an engineer use more AI simply to make their token count go up? That is the opening problem in swyx’s conversation with Gergely Orosz, author of The Pragmatic Engineer. Token maxing can begin as enthusiastic experimentation, but a visible usage metric gives it another purpose: demonstrating that you are using the tools enough to keep your job.
Orosz describes reports from employees and managers at large technology companies. At Salesforce, he says, employees can search a tool for colleagues’ dollar spending on AI tokens. At Meta, managers have described usage as one input to performance evaluation, alongside impact, code changes, and helpful code reviews. Layoff anxiety makes that input feel consequential, even though Orosz says the Block layoffs he mentions happened independently of token spending. A low-impact engineer with low usage can be portrayed as not trying; a high-impact engineer with high usage can be portrayed as innovating. His conversations do not represent all of Meta, but they expose how an ambiguous metric can reinforce an existing judgment.
The resulting behavior is concrete. Rather than reading documentation, an engineer asks an agent to summarize it, then asks follow-up questions even when the answers are poor. Orosz reports that some engineers do this to avoid the bottom 25% or 50% of a token-count ranking. At Microsoft, he has heard complaints about autonomous agents building junk merely to increase usage. He says a Meta leaderboard was removed after an article made it look embarrassing, yet the behavior continued: removing the display did not remove the fear that someone was still measuring.
High-paying jobs raise the stakes of ignoring even a dubious signal. Orosz tentatively recalls a Salesforce minimum AI-spend target of about $175 per month, encouraging employees to reach it early in the month. What began as playful experimentation becomes compliance. The precedent is familiar: developer-productivity tools such as Velocity and Pluralsight Flow made lines of code and pull-request counts visible, and engineers at companies that rewarded those numbers learned to optimize them. Usage is an input to engineering work; making it the target can separate it from useful output.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Why leaders pushed adoption
This is a recognizable Goodhart’s-law problem: once a measure becomes a target, people adapt their behavior to satisfy it. But swyx presses the harder question. Could the push still be worthwhile overall, despite the waste it creates? To explain the incentive behind it, Orosz returns to an Amsterdam gathering of CTOs roughly six months earlier. A leader at a Dutch e-commerce company complained that engineers had AI-tool subscriptions but remained skeptical and rarely used them.
That conversation took place before Opus 4.5. Engineers working in existing codebases had tried tools such as Cursor and found them only mildly useful: the tools did not reliably perform the refactoring or find the bugs they needed help with. A representative from the Dutch National Bank described a different situation. Its engineers had a reason to experiment because understanding the technology was part of regulating it. The difference was not merely access to a subscription; it was a reason to learn.
Meanwhile, leaders saw Anthropic writing more code with Claude Code while its revenue grew. Orosz warns that this invites confusion between correlation and causation, but the managerial response is understandable: push people to use AI rather than risk standing still. In his account of Coinbase, Brian Armstrong demanded adoption within a week and subsequently fired an engineer. Orosz describes Coinbase base salaries in the $300,000–$400,000 annual range, before equity, to explain why the adoption mandate carried weight. The message reached employees through the consequences of noncompliance, not through a demonstrated improvement to their own workflow.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Compliance versus useful output
Orosz offers a provocative analogy with algorithmic hiring interviews. Big tech has used LeetCode-style screening for roughly two decades despite persistent criticism that it poorly resembles the job. In his interpretation, it selects not only for intelligence but also for willingness to satisfy an irrelevant requirement. Spending two or three months preparing for interviews before AI assistance was commonplace is one example. Someone willing to comply to obtain a desirable job may also comply with token targets to retain it.
Some engineers will turn that pressure into useful projects. But Orosz contrasts the incentives with startups, where the immediate questions tend to be what got built and what it cost. Asked whether AI is making engineering faster, he sees individual gains but remains uncertain about gains across teams. Anthropic is an example of a company moving faster; many others have not visibly followed. Accelerating an individual task does not automatically accelerate the organization that contains it. Retrofitting AI into established working practices is a separate problem.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Choose the right unit of productivity
The METR study of early-2025 developer productivity makes the distinction between feeling faster and finishing faster unusually clear. swyx recalls the result as roughly 20% greater perceived productivity but roughly 20% worse measured productivity. More precisely, the original report found 19% longer completion times, while participants retrospectively estimated that AI had reduced their completion times by 20%. These are changes in task duration, not symmetric changes in productivity. The experiment randomized permission to use AI on real tasks in mature repositories familiar to the developers, using early-2025 tools principally comprising Cursor Pro and Claude 3.5/3.7 Sonnet.
The sample was small: the published study involved 16 developers and 246 tasks, rather than the 30 participants Orosz recalls onstage. Orosz remembers a particularly productive outlier, whom swyx identifies as previous podcast guest Quentin Anthony. That identification is their recollection; the useful methodological point is that an average can conceal substantial differences between developers and workflows.
swyx then changes the unit of analysis. He has been enabling coding agents for nontechnical colleagues. Even if the engineer’s own coding speed barely improves, a colleague who previously had to wait for that engineer can now make progress directly. His joke about “serverless developers” points to a real organizational mechanism: removing a dependency can create value that an individual pull-request study does not measure.
| Unit of analysis | Question |
|---|---|
| Individual task | Does a developer finish the same task sooner? |
| Organizational workflow | Can a colleague proceed without waiting for an engineer? |
Both questions matter, but answering one does not answer the other.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Learning through changing workflows
Practical fluency takes time even for experienced practitioners. Orosz recalls a 2024 conversation with Simon Willison. After a joking introduction focused on Hacker News, swyx points instead to Willison’s work on Django, blogging, and prompt injection. The relevant observation is Willison’s description of still changing his workflows after two years of experimentation. There was no manual that captured how to use the tools well.
That is uncomfortable for engineers accustomed to learning a system from its internals. Understanding compilers and assembly can directly improve low-level programming. Understanding attention and probability can explain something about a language model, but it does not by itself establish when to delegate, what context to provide, or how to recognize a useful result. Orosz’s distinction is between architectural knowledge and tool-use intuition; the latter requires repeated practice.
A successful personal workflow can also break when introduced into a team, forcing another round of learning. Orosz sees more value in teams with low ego and a willingness to revise assumptions. The invitation is to abandon unhelpful priors, not engineering experience: keep the judgment earned from building systems while testing whether an old constraint still applies.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Broader responsibilities, smaller teams
The software engineer’s expanding role predates coding agents. Venture-funded startups have long faced pressure to grow quickly with small teams. By the mid-2010s, many expected engineers to own the code they deployed, while more traditional organizations retained dedicated DevOps teams. Orosz sees testing and operational responsibility increasingly folded into software engineering, followed by product responsibility. Companies were already hiring product engineers in 2022, before the AI shift under discussion.
AI accelerates that expansion. Even early-career engineers are expected to do more senior-like work: plan the approach, understand the business, and take responsibility beyond implementation. Smaller teams make that breadth more consequential. Orosz recounts a conversation with an engineering VP at John Deere, the roughly two-century-old tractor manufacturer, who described two-pizza teams becoming one-pizza teams partly because of the tools. The anecdote places the change beyond venture-backed software companies.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Orchestrating agents is not people management
Does directing coding agents make everyone an engineering manager? Orosz rejects the analogy. During an informal show of hands about management experience and aspirations, swyx estimates participation at roughly 15%–20%; Orosz jokes about talking prospective managers out of it. People may pursue management for career development, compensation, or greater impact. The actual work also brings distance from the product and responsibility for interpersonal conflict, personal problems, and team dynamics. Agents do not bring that category of responsibility.
The closer comparison is a tech lead or experienced engineer directing and reviewing work. In Orosz’s conversation with DHH, the Ruby on Rails creator uses a “mech suit” metaphor: agents extend what the engineer can do while leaving the engineer in control. His image of doing seven things at once describes that feeling of amplified capability, rather than a measured throughput result.
The feedback loop also differs. Orosz illustrates management with a project involving ten reports, where the consequences of a decision may take six months to become visible. Agent work returns feedback much sooner.
| Responsibility | People management | Agent orchestration |
|---|---|---|
| Human needs and conflict | Central | Not part of the agent relationship |
| Relationship to the product | Often more indirect | Can remain hands-on |
| Feedback on decisions | Can take months | Much faster |
Orchestration still requires judgment, but it need not resemble running a department. Nor is maximum concurrency the goal. Orosz cites Mitchell Hashimoto as someone comfortable with a small setup; his account mentions two agents and then focuses on a single background agent. The practical point is that a manageable amount of concurrent work can be enough.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
The infrastructure hidden behind product output
Large AI budgets do not necessarily produce an immediate stream of new customer-facing features. Looking at Uber from outside, Orosz does not see a corresponding explosion of product launches. Looking inside, he sees substantial infrastructure work. Buying Cursor or Claude Code is only one part of it.
His account identifies several concrete integration points:
- Background coding agents: custom agents connected to the company’s monorepo.
- MCP gateway: access integrated with internal service discovery, so agents can work with the company’s services.
- On-call tooling: operational workflows being retooled for AI assistance.
- Code review: changes categorized by risk within the internal review system.
He names Airbnb, Intercom, Meta, Microsoft, and midsized companies as pursuing similar internal work. These investments change how engineering happens before they necessarily change what customers see.
Orosz gives three reasons for the buildout. First, internal tools provide a comparatively low-risk way to learn through use, without shipping unwanted AI features to customers. Second, enormous codebases do not fit into a context window. Custom retrieval, including basic retrieval-augmented generation, can select relevant material rather than asking a generic tool to understand everything. In that setting, he expects integration with internal context to outperform an off-the-shelf setup. Third, AI changes funding incentives: a developer-platform request that struggles to win headcount can become attractive when described as agent experience. swyx jokes that the resulting interface is just a CLI.
The consequence is substantial duplicated effort. Companies are building their own versions of similar systems, and Orosz expects the work to continue into the following year. His joke that a large company ought already to be building an MCP gateway captures how common the pattern has become. swyx connects this to the next day’s gateway and architecture talks: teams are learning from one another’s implementations because there is not yet an established textbook for the practice.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Shopify’s deliberate cost of being early
It is easy to dismiss incumbent spending as waste until considering what would happen if a company such as Google executed well. Effective investment by a large incumbent can be a serious competitive threat. Shopify helps Orosz explain why accepting churn may be rational.
In his account, Farhan Thawar heard that GitHub was developing Copilot internally in 2021 and contacted Thomas Dohmke for access. The important exchange was not a purchasing negotiation: when told it was not for sale, Thawar offered a company-wide rollout in return for candid feedback. Orosz says Shopify offered feedback from 3,000 users and received Copilot about a year before wider availability. He describes Shopify as the first company to get access, with initially weak tooling and considerable churn. Subsequent early tool adoption brought generous budgets and more time spent working through bugs.
The tradeoff was deliberate: spend money and absorb instability to learn sooner. Orosz characterizes Shopify’s advantage as a few months, potentially six months, ahead of competitors. That head start can matter to a technology business; a company whose advantage lies mainly in a physical product may prefer to wait for the tools to mature. Thawar’s growing concern about costs coexists with another constraint: denying access to the best tools can make hiring the best engineers harder.
Innovation and recruiting together explain why a policy can look extravagant while still serving a business purpose. swyx adds that preparing for an interview with Shopify CTO Mikhail Parakhin exposed enough customer-facing machine learning and infrastructure to make him want to become a customer. The internal investment is most persuasive when it eventually supports something valuable outside engineering.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Protecting the work without burning out
Once he felt product-market fit, Orosz concentrated on what was working. He declined interview requests, collaborations, and podcasts to protect the article itself. The publishing commitment grew from one article to two, and for two years writing remained his focus. Only then did he step back and ask how to turn something readers wanted—and he enjoyed making—into a sustainable business.
Orosz reports working 50–60 hours even during vacations in those first two years. The work occupied his attention continuously, so sustainability required changing how it was produced. He hired Elin Bratt as the first tech-industry researcher; Jessica joined later and was present at the event. He also started a podcast roughly a year and a half before this conversation, giving an audience access to discussions he was already having.
Orosz says The Pragmatic Engineer became the number-one paid technology newsletter about four months after launch and held that position for three years. He begins to bring SemiAnalysis into the ranking discussion before the conversation turns to recognizing his role as a European technology voice. The business story ends with a concrete change in operating model: preserve the deeply researched writing that created demand, share the research workload, and expand into conversations without making permanent overwork the condition of success.
Suggest correction
This note stays in this page until you copy or download it. Nothing is submitted; reloading clears the draft.
Resources
From the talk
Gergely Orosz's software engineering newsletter, blog and books.
The original report on AI-assisted task completion by experienced open-source developers, including methods and limits on generalization.
Orosz's interview with David Heinemeier Hansson about agent-first development and the mech-suit metaphor.
Updates since the talk
Explains why selection effects and concurrent agents complicate estimates of productivity with newer coding tools.
Uber engineers explain agent identity propagation, scoped authorization and gateway access to internal services.
Read the complete timestamped transcript
- 0:00
[upbeat music] Gergely.
- 0:21
All right. I, I gonna assume most of you... Uh, show of hands who subscribes to The Pragmatic Engineer? [audience member cheering] Oh, my God.
- 0:27
Wow.
- 0:28
Uh, he is, uh, he needs no introduction then. Let's get right into it. Um, what is token maxing, and should everyone here be doing it? [laughs] [laughing]
- 0:41
So I, I heard about token maxing a week ago, or like week and a half ago first, and you know, some people have been doing it for longer, and I tweeted about it, I think three days ago saying, "Oh, there's this to- token maxing."
- 0:51
And again, you, you see it on social media, and my DMs were blowing up from, from people at large companies. I don't wanna name names, but like, you know, Meta- [laughing] ...
- 0:59
Microsoft, uh, some, some, some other ones as well like, uh, the likes of IDN and, and, and so, so many more. And the story is a little bit different every, at every company on why people are doing it and whether they like it or whether they think it's good, but there's a few, few common themes.
- 1:17
One is token output at these larger companies is measured in, in some way. There's like either a leaderboard or there's a way to look up your, your peers. Salesforce, for example, you can check the spend, the, the money spent that every, every person at the company did.
- 1:34
You can like search in a tool that someone built, and it shows how many dollars they spent on, on AI-related tokens. And, you know, first there's this number, then there's this uncertainty on in the tech industry, right?
- 1:46
We're kind of hearing layoffs, like massive cuts at the likes of Block, and, uh, I mean, they're like, no matter how much tokens people spend, they were let go independent of this.
- 1:55
But people start to think like, "Does-- is it part of performance evaluations or promotions or all that?" And the answer is, mm, kind of. [laughs] So inside of Meta, uh, I talk with managers, and in the performance evaluation, they have this data point, which is one of many data points, right?
- 2:12
The same way as, as like diffs or impact or, or code reviews of how helpful this person is. But they do, just like with any data point, they sometimes pull it and use it.
- 2:24
So typically, and just like any data point, it can be weaponized. So like a low performer with low impact and a low token count, clearly not even trying. So...
- 2:33
And a high performer with high impact and high token count, clear that's innovating and this must be doing good. So inside of these companies specifically, I talk with a lot of people at, at, at Meta, and again, this is not representative of one hundred percent of Meta, but they have this leaderboard where people showed up and they
- 2:46
have like massive amounts of tokens and a lot of engineers got just scared, worried, so they start to token max to try to generate tokens. Stories that I've heard first or well, secondhand from these people who, who, who told me s- firsthand is, for example, instead of reading the documentation, I will ask the agent to summarize it
- 3:03
for me and ask questions even though it doesn't do a good job answering it, but my token count goes up. People just want to not be in the bottom twenty-five percent or bottom fifty percent for token count where these things are measured.
- 3:15
Inside of Microsoft, again, there's a leaderboard and I'm talking with people, they're like, "It's ridiculous like how some people are just running autonomous agents to build junk, honestly, for the sake of having that number go up."
- 3:27
And, and sometimes it gets ridiculous 'cause like inside of Meta, uh, they had this leaderboard. They got rid of it after an article came out and it looked, um, stupid, honestly.
- 3:35
So whoever built it, like just, just like closed it down. But people are still token maxing, by the way, because there's this, this thinking that it might have gone, but you know, we're engineers.
- 3:43
And don't forget, these are high-paying jobs, right? Like, like you don't really wanna lose a job over something stupid as like you didn't have a high enough token count, and that's how it feels.
- 3:50
But inside Salesforce, there's a target of minimum spend per month. Like I think it's like a hundred and seventy-five dollars between things. So like people are like, again, you kind of like, you know, beginning of the month, like just token max to get there.
- 4:03
So it's, it's, it's weird and it started as a joke earlier. Like a few months ago, token maxing was really just people like going crazy and enjoying this thing and building cool stuff, but it's kind of turned into, in a lot of companies, I, I think it's just a culturally weird thing.
- 4:15
So it's a weird time to be in 'cause I remember lines of code used to be when, when early, uh, developer productivity tools came out like Velocity and Pluralsight Flow, they kinda measured lines of code and, and number of QPRs.
- 4:28
And we know that was stupid and people kind of optimized for that at companies that did it. But it's, it's almost like w- now it's the top running companies like, uh, Meta or Microsoft who are incentivizing people just to do just stupid sh- stuff, honestly.
- 4:42
Yeah. Those are wild stories. And one of the things-- You're clapping for that. [laughs] [laughs] [laughing]
- 4:48
That deserves another full conversation. [laughs] Uh, one of the things I liked about talking with you and subscribing to your newsletter is that you basically kind of anonymize all these stories from, from real, uh, incidents and real examples.
- 5:01
Um, why is it that, um... Is, is this still worth it, right? With all the flaws, uh, you know, when you have Goodhart's law, like what, what, whatever gets measured, it gets, uh, sort of abused.
- 5:13
With all the flaws, is it still worth it? Uh, you know, uh, is, is, is AI basically still making us faster overall? Like the, the cost of token maxing is still-- With all these like really ridiculous examples, is this still net worth it?
- 5:27
Yeah, so don't forget, like the reason token maxing is probably a thing is like let's just go back to six months ago where
- 5:37
I, I, I was at a, I was at a CTO like dinner conference, whatever, like a bunch of CTOs gather, CTO-level people. Th- this, this was in Amsterdam, and we had like, like a bunch of people, and there we were talking and, and one of the CTOs, like the, the, the Amazon of the Netherlands, uh, there, there's
- 5:54
a, an e-commerce company, was saying like, "Hey, like e- everyone, like I have a problem. Like engineers on my team are really skeptical of AI, and they're not really using it, the AI tools."
- 6:02
Don't forget this was before Opus four point five and those models were, were out. They were not as, as productive. We had, uh, we already had a Cursor and, and the like, and they subscribed.
- 6:11
They're like, "They're just not using it that much on existing code bases," right? And, and next to them, uh- The head of the Dutch National Bank said, like, "Oh, we don't have that problem.
- 6:23
Our engineers are using it 'cause our, our mission is to regulate this thing, so we need to understand it," and they're kinda motivated. And there was this time where experienced engineers were kind of holding on because if you had an existing code base and used AI Cursor, whatever, on it, it was mildly useful, if that even.
- 6:40
And these engineers were like, "Why should I use a tool if it doesn't help me refactor, it doesn't find the bug, it doesn't do what I need to do?"
- 6:47
And leadership saw they're not really using it, and they kept hearing, you know, the likes of Anthropic, for example, was already saying how they're writing a lot of their code with, with Claude code.
- 6:56
Uh, and it just keeps increasing. And Anthropic's, you know, like, revenue is going up like this. So those leaders are kind of... They might be confusing correlation and, and, and you know, like, which one comes first, but they're like, "Well, we should be using it more because probably good things will happen than just bad things will happen
- 7:14
if we don't use it." So the whole targeting and measuring things, it actually came from leadership wanting, "We want our engineers to use frigging AI. I don't care what it is."
- 7:23
And it, it was a bit of a push. Like, we know this is bad, but it's, it's better than them using it. The best example is Coinbase, where, uh, Brian Armstrong, the CEO, just, like, fired an engineer, or he sent an email saying, "Everyone, like, needs to get on board and use AI tools, and whoever doesn't use
- 7:39
it in a week, I'll have a conversation with them." And then I think a week later, Saturday, he fired an engineer. And you know, like this, again, high-paying job, like, we're talking base salary of like 3, 400K, thousand dollars per, per year.
- 7:50
Uh, and then both s-s-equity and everything on, on top of it. Like, they got the message. Everyone just started to just, you know, like, use it. And you know, back to your question.
- 7:58
So on, on one end, there, there's a push, and look,
- 8:01
I feel it's a little bit like this is gonna be controversial, but have you ever worr- wondered why big tech loves to do LeetCode-style interviews, algorithmical interviews, which have nothing to do with the job, and, and we know it's the case.
- 8:14
And there's a lot of criticism for this, and they've been doing this since, since, like, 20 years. But here's the thing. It selects for a specific type of person.
- 8:22
It selects for the person who's smart and willing to put, put up with absolute bullshit to get the job.
- 8:29
And this person, you know, they will study two months pre-AI, two months or three months of LeetCode, which again, makes no sense on the job, but you do it.
- 8:37
You get in there, and this person will be putting to, to put up with bullshit that makes absolute no sense to keep the job. So token maxing happens at large companies, and people are putting up with this BS.
- 8:49
And look, a lot of them are smart, and they will make the most of it. Some of them will build cool stuff. Um, it's, it's the reality, I think, of big tech.
- 8:57
So we're in this weird place where big tech is a bit weirder than startups where, you know, no one cares about token maxing. They care about, like, just building stuff and, you know, use whatever makes sense.
- 9:05
Uh, don't-- People will care about the cost.
- 9:07
Yeah.
- 9:08
But, but going back to your question, like, like, you know, like, is, is it making us productive a-as, as a whole? Uh, like, individually, it's, it certainly is, and as teams, we're kind of like a big question mark as we should be moving faster.
- 9:18
And there are a few companies that do. Anthropic is a good example, but a bunch of companies are, like, not. It's, it's, it's... It seems it's hard to retrofit all this AI into, like, the way we have been working.
- 9:26
Yeah. Uh, one of my favorite studies from last year was the meter study where they, uh, did a blind test of, uh, people and, and their expectations of productivity, right?
- 9:38
And, uh, basically, the, the end result was they felt 20% more productive, but their demonstrated results was actually they were 20% less productive on average.
- 9:48
Yes, but that, that study was very interesting 'cause they-
- 9:50
It was a very small sample size.
- 9:51
It was 30 people, and there- [laughs] ... one outlier, uh, who actually was way more productive.
- 9:55
Quentin Anthony. We, we interviewed him on the pod, yeah.
- 9:58
Yeah.
- 9:58
Yeah. So he was the one productive AI engineer. [laughs]
- 10:03
Uh, but anyway, so, uh, actually, my theory is that, uh, something that I've seen on my team is that I've been enabling coding agents for the rest of my team who are non-technical, right?
- 10:11
And, uh, you as the engineer may not be more, much, that much more productive because... And, and you can be more productive if you, uh, attend AIE. But, uh, [laughs] if you actually enable your non-coding, uh, your, your non-coding co-collaborators to code, actually, they are more productive 'cause they don't have to wait for you, right?
- 10:29
And, and that's that, like, unlock of like, oh, suddenly you have serverless developers, basically. [laughs] Uh, and I think, I think that's, that organizational coding thing is different than studying pull request level productivity for the individual developer.
- 10:42
Yeah, and, and the thing that still, I still remember to this date, I, I talked with Simon Willison, I think in 2024, so two years after ChatGPT came out, and he was Simon Willison, top commenter on Hacker News, or he's, he's, he's-
- 10:55
That's his-- That's not his title, man. Top commenter on Hacker News. [laughs] What the fuck? [laughs]
- 11:01
No, he's, he's-
- 11:01
Creator of Django, top blogger, yeah. Uh, prompt injections. Tr- uh, yeah.
- 11:06
Yeah, he's actually not a top commenter. He's the most submitted blog 'cause he blogs so much.
- 11:09
Yeah, yeah.
- 11:09
Like, like, and he's... But he told me back then, he said, like, "This thing, AI, is, is just so hard to, to get good at." He's like, "There's no manual."
- 11:19
And he's like, "I've been doing it back then for two years, and I'm still, I'm still figuring out what works and what doesn't. I keep changing my workflows." And I think that's something that is a bit hard for us.
- 11:30
Two things about AI that for any of us engineers is hard to understand. One is it just takes a long time to get good at it, and you need to keep doing it.
- 11:38
And the second thing is understanding the theory will not make you better at using the tools, which is an absolute mind fuck, honestly, because we're so used to, you know, you understand how the compiler works, how assembly works.
- 11:50
Okay, you will now be more efficient if you wanna write low-level code 'cause you know how it works. But with, with these things, I mean, you, you can-- Of course, it's, it's helpful to understand how, uh, how the, the architecture under-underlying works, attention, uh, the different, the, the different probability sets, et cetera, et cetera.
- 12:06
But it will not help you get a sense for how you can use it. And then once you figure out how you can be more productive if you're s- if, if you're inside of a team, again, it kind of breaks, and you have to re-learn again.
- 12:17
But, but the more effort you put into it, it, like, it's clear that it's, it's working, it's helpful. And I think it, it's-- The teams I'm seeing getting more value out of it, low ego, open to learning, open to leaving your priors behind.
- 12:30
The word priors I have not- ... use forever, and I fear we're in the stage where, like, just, just leave your pyres behind. Just have an open mind and, like, don't leave your experience behind, but, you know, be open to it.
- 12:41
Yeah. Zooming out a little bit, how is the role of the software engineer changing?
- 12:48
I think it's always-- This was always coming, but, uh, AI is just, just speeding it up. Uh, even before AI, a few s--
- 12:57
It, it's interesting how you see, like, startups in, in many ways, venture-funded startups are kind of front-running what the industry will be cashing up 'cause venture-funded startups are about fast growth, uh, doing th- mo- moving fast with smaller teams because smaller teams m- mean smaller costs e- even pre-AI.
- 13:13
So a lot, a lot of these venture-funded startups started to expect a lot wider range of roles from engineers. For example, DevOps as a whole, uh, inside VC-funded companies from the mid-2010s, every engineer was kind of, like, responsible for the code they deployed.
- 13:28
But, like, more traditional companies, they had more money, more-- sorry, more-- less pressure. They kind of have dedicated DevOps teams and some of those things. So in, in the industry, like the software engineer is now becoming, like, the kind of-- The tester role has collapsed into software engineer.
- 13:42
We-- Most companies don't have dedicated testers. Very, very few do. DevOps collapsed into here. Uh, and now we're starting to have the product role also starting to come. So a lot of companies, even, like, in twenty twenty-two before AI, started to hire for product engineers.
- 13:55
That's happening faster. And I think the, the last push that AI is doing is even for early career engineers, there's a lot more seniority expected or, or senior-like things, planning about things, knowing about the business.
- 14:07
So I, I, uh, I, I think the role is-- expectations are, are higher. Teams are also getting smaller everywhere. I talked with someone at John Deere, two hundred person, uh, two hundred-year-old company, sorry.
- 14:19
Uh, you know, like, they do tractors and, and all, all, all that stuff. And, and inside of that company, one of their, their VP of Engineerings was telling me how they're actually seeing that their two-pizza teams are now just one-pizza teams inside of that company.
- 14:31
It's the reality partially because of these tools.
- 14:33
My-
- 14:34
So-
- 14:34
My joke used to be I am a one-pizza team because I eat a lot of pizza. [laughs] But, uh, depends how much pizza you eat. Uh, there's-- Uh, so I'm sorry to interrupt.
- 14:42
I don't know if I cut you off in some, uh, critical point. Uh, there's a comment saying, I've heard it twice even among this audience, where a lot of people are saying that, "Oh, uh, you're no longer engineer.
- 14:51
Everyone's an engineering manager now." And you've been an engineering manager, and I wonder if you agree with that or if you have a different take. You know, because basically you're-- The, the, the common analogy is that you're no longer a software engineer, you're just managing engineering agents, right?
- 15:06
Yeah. If you've been a manager before, that is absolute bullshit. [laughs]
- 15:11
So, so here, here's the thing. The, like, yes, you are a manager without all the things that no one wants to become a manager for. The, the-- When you become an engineering manager, hands up if you are or have been an engineering manager.
- 15:24
Right. Hands up if you actually-- if you've not been and you wanna be one.
- 15:26
Yeah, it's about fifteen, twenty percent.
- 15:28
Good. [laughs] All right, you, you come and talk to me afterwards. I'll, I'll, I'll tell there's a hand up there. I'll talk you out of it. So- [laughing]
- 15:37
So what you think you become an eng- engineering manager to, like, help people's career, maybe have higher salary, higher impact, all, you know, there can be a lot of dynamics.
- 15:45
But the reality is, is, is you, you become more removed from the product, and you have to deal with people problems. And the thing with, with agents is you don't have to deal with people drama, people problems, conflict between your team.
- 15:58
I mean, unless the next generation of agents starts to fight with each other, I think that'll be something. But y- you actually, you, you do have to orchestrate, but it's more like a tech lead role or, or, or, or experienced engineer where, where you're, like, mentoring, uh, mentoring engineers, but you don't have the people management.
- 16:13
You don't need to worry about the personal problems. So it's actually a lot more kind of empowering. And I was talking with, uh, the podcast was, was just out, uh, yesterday with, with DHH, uh, creator of Ruby on Rails, who said, you know, people tell-- told him like, "Okay, it's, it's like managing things," and he's not excited
- 16:28
about managing agents, but he feels it's more like a mech suit where you have, like, you, you can do seven things at once. You can do it a lot faster, and you're in control, and that's more what it feels like.
- 16:37
So there's orchestration, yes, but it's very different to management. And also, the, the really, really bad thing or honestly shitty thing about management if, if you make it into management, which makes this hard, also rewarding later when you, you tell yourself at least this thing- [laughing]
- 16:50
... is you start a project with all these people under you. You know, congratulations, you've got ten people. Wonderful. And you start a project, and in six months, you will see some results of the decision that you made.
- 17:01
With agents, it's just so much faster. So the, the feedback loop is faster. So I, I think it's, it's not much of it except for the orchestration. And, and, and for that, everyone's gonna have their own flavor.
- 17:10
Some people will, will have the tendency to, like, run multiple agents, and they're good at this or be good at it. Some people just do, like, two agents. Michelle Hashimoto, I interviewed him.
- 17:17
He has two agents. He always has one agent running, the, the, the, uh-- No, he has one background agent that he does, and that's it. He's like, "Two is enough for me."
- 17:25
Great.
- 17:25
Yeah. Yeah. Uh, we're figuring out the patterns. Um, uh, I wanna pi-- hit you on large tech infra. [clears throat]
- 17:34
Uh, this is something that, uh, I think both of us are very excited by, by, uh, good infra, which is a very niche, uh, interest. What are you seeing?
- 17:43
It's wild to see how much of the-- So I, I said that from externally, a lot of companies, a lot of big tech companies, especially the ones that are spending a bunch on AI and have platforms using all that, you're not seeing too much, like, more come out.
- 17:56
Like Uber is a good example. I'm not seeing too many more features come out of Uber or a new product launch, and they're like, "But what's going on?" They are really investing in AI.
- 18:04
But when you look inside, there's a whole lot of buzz. They are rebuilding their complete infra. You know, they're-- And I'm not talking about they're buying Cursor or, or Cloud Code or all that.
- 18:14
They're doing that as well, but they're completely, they're building their own own custom background coding agents that is integrated into their monorepo. They are, are having, uh, their own MCP gateway that is, is now integrated into service discovery.
- 18:29
Their on-call tooling is being retooled. Their internal code review system is, like, like categorizing based on risk. They are, like... And U- Uber is one example, but all everyone else Airbnb, Intercom, Meta, Microsoft, even mid-sized companies are just building so much internal infra.
- 18:47
And I was asking to myself, like, why? Uh, it, on one end, this feels like such a waste, but when I worked at Uber for four years, I realized, uh, Uber, they spent so much on, on the internal platform, there's two reasons.
- 18:57
One is honestly, it's a, it's a low-risk way to get good with AI, uh, to be hands-on, and these companies want to be hands-on, but maybe you shouldn't start with shipping AI features no one wants into your code base.
- 19:09
Second of all, because these, these companies have such, uh, so much code that never fit in a context window, by building custom solutions and just basic, basic RAGs, that kind of stuff, they will have better results than off-the-shelf vendors, so they already have a win.
- 19:24
And number three, honestly, is, uh, anything that has AI in it gets funded. So there's this joke of, if you're in developer platform team and you're asking for more headcount, like good luck with that.
- 19:32
Oh, developer platform. Oh, but say that you want to get two extra headcount for agent experience, done. [laughs] Uh, so, so there's that part as well. But, but all of-
- 19:42
And agent experience is just a CLI.
- 19:44
Yeah.
- 19:44
Like [laughs]
- 19:45
Pretty much. But all of this com- in- inside, there's so much buzz and so much work. Everyone's building their own custom system. So I'm kind of wondering how long this will take, but I think for next year, this is gonna happen.
- 19:54
So if you either have friends or if you're work- if you're working at a company, you'll see. But talk with, with friends at other large companies, and you will probably see you are all building the same thing.
- 20:01
If you're at a large company and you're not already building an MCP gateway, what are you even doing? [laughs]
- 20:07
Yeah. Um, actually, a lot of these topics are exactly the things I curated for tomorrow. Uh, so just, uh, fantastic to have you as the closing keynote for today because, uh, it's, it's like a appetizer for tomorrow.
- 20:19
We have talks about MCP gateway and, uh, all these sort of AI architecture and infra things. And I do think like, uh, infra, like,
- 20:27
y- taking AI infra seriously as a company is, uh, very misun- not, not that well underst- understood, and right now, you just kinda learn by example from people because there's not really, like, a, a textbook or anything like about it.
- 20:39
So the way I think about this, because again, from, if you just kind of step out, and we love to criticize big tech of how they're wasting money here and there, and by the way, we love to criticize Google, and I'm kind of thinking to myself like, "Hang on, what if Google ex- actually executed well?" [laughs]
- 20:53
Like, uh, like do we want that? And you know, that would kill all the startups. But, but, but what they're doing makes, makes sense. And Shopify is an example where I'm like, "Huh, I'm starting to get why it makes sense to do all this stuff."
- 21:04
So Shopify in twenty twenty-one, they were the first company to have access to a GitHub Copilot. What happened is the, the head of engineering, Farhan Thawar, heard about GitHub Copilot being developed internally inside of GitHub, and he pinged Thomas Dohmke, the CEO of GitHub at the time, and said, "Hey, Thomas, I heard you guys are doing Copilot."
- 21:22
And he's like, "Yeah, we are. It's internal." He's like, "I, I'd like to get access to it." He's like, "Yeah, but it's not for sale." He's like, "No, no, no, you don't understand.
- 21:29
I, I didn't ask if it's for sale. We would like to roll it out to all of Shopify, and in return, we will give you feedback for three thousand people for, you know, as, as honest feedback all the time."
- 21:38
And so they got it a year before it was out anywhere, and they incurred a lot of churn. It wasn't that great initially. And, and they went through all of this stuff.
- 21:45
And then Shopify was the first company to onboard to like a bunch of other tools, and they gave unlimited budget. And they're spending so much time k- ironing out bugs.
- 21:54
But the reason they're doing it, this is what like made me click, is they are trading off churn and expense and spending a lot more money to be at the forefront of this.
- 22:05
They are a few months ahead or six months ahead of their competition, and for them, it's worth it. It's not worth it for anyone else, right? If you're, if you're in a company where your business is like something, something physical and you don't care, like, yeah, just, just wait out.
- 22:16
It, it'll come. But for a lot of us in the tech industry, this churn is worth it. Plus, what Farhan told me is like, 'cause he, he actually told me he's kinda worried about the cost now, but he was like, "Look, like it's still worth it because if I-- it will look silly if I said you cannot
- 22:30
have these tools. How would I hire the best?"
- 22:33
Yeah.
- 22:33
So it's, it's innovation, recruitment, and it kind of makes sense when you think about it, and the weird thing, everyone's doing it at the same time. So it looks silly, but it, it's rational.
- 22:42
Uh, my next podcast is with Michal Pardé, again, the CTO of Shopify, and, uh, the sheer amount of machine learning that they do and infra that they set up for their customers makes me want to be a customer.
- 22:51
You know? That's, that's, that's like the best, uh, endorsement I can give. Um, I'm gonna get meta little bit and talk about Pragmatic Engineer. Uh, you and I kinda started-ish in COVID.
- 23:01
Uh, you'd just left Uber. Uh, how has it been growing? What, what are the main stats that you're proud of that, uh, you'd like to share with the world?
- 23:09
Yeah. So I, I started Pragmatic Engineer. I, I, um, a joke that if it wasn't for COVID, I, I would probably never have started the, this thing, because what happened with COVID is, uh, Uber had layoffs, and most of the tech industry was doing great, but Uber was not, and my team, uh, was hit by layoffs, and
- 23:23
then we, we had to disperse the remaining people at other teams that our mission no longer made sense. And it was just like a-- the mo- morale was low, my morale was low, so I was like, "Let me take a break."
- 23:31
I wanted to write some books. swyx was writing his book, The, The Coding Career.
- 23:35
Yeah. Some of you have read it. I've met some of you.
- 23:37
Yeah, and that, that's how we met there. And then, uh, my plan was to write a book and then start sort of some startup, something, something platform engineer, Control C, Control V from what Uber was doing inside, and that's actually almost all Uber succe-- U- Uber startups.
- 23:50
It's, it's amazing. Temporal is, is, is from there.
- 23:53
Yeah.
- 23:53
Chronosphere. There's-
- 23:54
If I-- By the way, if I did not start AI Engineer, I would've started Platform Engineer.
- 23:58
Yeah.
- 23:59
That, that would've been the industry conference. Yeah [laughs]
- 24:02
Love it. Uh, and then I star- I started The Pragmatic Engineer, uh, a, a year after I left Uber. Uh, it was just an experiment. Um, I figured no one...
- 24:10
Substack was taking off. No one was writing about software engineering in depth, and I just acted all confidence, saying, pretended that I, I knew what I was doing. The first article was about Uber's platform and program split that no one had wr- written about publicly before, and it's a, it's a free article.
- 24:24
You can, you can now check it out. Um, and it was like when you feel product market fit, that's what I felt almost immediately. The first week before I published anything, just to A confident Twitter post.
- 24:35
I had 100 people pay upfront $100 for the whole year. So I was like, "Whoa, I haven't published anything." In six weeks, I was at 1,000 people paying for this thing that didn't exist before, uh, which was my old Uber base salary back, back in Amsterdam, and it just kept going up.
- 24:51
So like I, I figured, like when you find product-market fit, this is like outside of... Like, there's this rule, like if you find product-market fit, just keep doing what you're doing.
- 24:58
So for me, I just kept writing that one article. I got all these interview requests, collaborations, podcasts. I just said no to all of them 'cause I knew [laughs] the most important thing was to do what makes it successful, which is that one article.
- 25:09
And later, it turned into two articles, and for two years, this is all I did, just two articles. And after two years I looked up and I was like, "Huh," like, "this is actually working.
- 25:18
People like doing it. I like doing it. There's a future in that." And that's when I decided I actually wanna turn this into a business that I don't burn out, because for two years, every vacation I went to, I was working 50, 60 hours.
- 25:30
Uh, I was always thinking, I was writing, I, I couldn't really let go, so I started to grow the team a, a little bit. Uh, uh, I, I... Ellen Bird, the first tech industry researcher.
- 25:38
Ellen, she's a ex, ex, uh-
- 25:40
She's here, right?
- 25:41
Uh, uh, Ellen's not here. Um, Jessica is, who, who just joined, uh, later.
- 25:45
Yeah.
- 25:46
And then, uh, s- so now it was two of us, uh, and I started a podcast a year and a half ago because I talk with so many people, I figured it, it was a bit of a shame to, to, to not have it.
- 25:56
So The Pragmatic Engineer became the number one paid technology newsletter about four months after starting. It stayed there for three years. Now Semi Analysis has-
- 26:05
Dylan versus, uh, you guys. Um, yeah, no, congrats on your success. Uh, I think you, you're also a, a leading v- tech voice in Europe, which I think you're sort of proudly sort of, uh, upholding that over here, which I really wanted to feature.
- 26:18
So thank you for your support for AEI and, uh, everyone thank you too.
- 26:22
Awesome.
- 26:22
Great. [audience applauding]
- 26:24
Thanks, man. [upbeat music]