28 - The Agents Aren’t The Only Ones Overworked

Dillon, Scott, and Matt dig into a Harvard Business Review piece on the central irony of the AI era: the tools sold to reduce our workload are quietly making us do more, because it's cheap to start work and expensive to finish it. They get into agent-swarm mandates and the dreaded 'tech lead of agents' adoption tier, Dillon's ever-growing pile of 50 open PRs, skill atrophy, and companies torching their entire AI budgets in a quarter. Plus a brand-new drama segment — Spill the Sweet Tea — on TanStack Start's controversial 'RSC support' and whether it actually follows the React spec.

Hosts:

Released:

Episode length: 49m 57s


Summary

The AI Overwork Paradox

The article's core thesisOpens in new tab: AI makes it easier to do more and harder to stop. Dillon frames the mechanism — agents get you 90% of the way, but that last 10% (the review) is where all the time goes, and the outputs pile up faster than anyone can clear them.

"It's cheap to get something into a PR"

Pre-LLM, you'd note something as clean this up later and ticket it. Now an agent spins up a PR on the spot. Dillon's open-PR count becomes the episode's running gag — 30 → 40 → 50 PRs, "a pile of dirty laundry I need to clean up." The group debates whether shifting context left into draft PRs is actually fine, or just deferred debt.

The compression problem

Matt's key observation: agents sped up the development part of the lifecycle, but planning and review didn't speed up — so they become the bottleneck. He argues his own burnout comes less from overwork and more from PRs sitting unreviewed while everything else stays just as slow.

Working in a silo

What used to be a conversation with a teammate — bouncing ideas, sanity-checking a plan — now happens alone with an agent. Matt: you become "a team of multiple teams of one," which may make the work feel less meaningful (and a little like "AI psychosis").

More productivity ≠ more reward

You're rewarded with more work, not more pay. The group lands on a rough 70/30 split (let the agent do ~70%, but look at 100% of the code), and Scott's bug-fixing tip: write the failing test first, then let AI fix it. Counterpoint from a Whoop director of engineering — the aspirational endgame is prompt → outcome → KPI check → ship with no human review. Everyone agrees: crazy, and not where we are yet.

The three-tier mandate

Matt's company (HubSpot) defines AI adoption in tiers: beginner (legacy workflow, tab-autocomplete, 90%+ code by hand), intermediate ("single agent operator"), and advanced ("tech lead of agents" — managing a swarm). Everyone's expected to hit intermediate by end of Q2, but there's no rubric and no guidance on keeping quality high. The hosts' worry: you're being graded on process, not results — "I want to make the button blue, but now I'm going to use 10 agents."

Throwing money on a fire

Token spend is its own theme: Matt cites reports of Uber burning its entire 2026 AI budget in Q1. Scott connects it to feature bloat — churning out a six-image carousel nobody uses and burning a million dollars in tokens to do it. Shareholders get faster output and don't care about process; the people delivering get squeezed.

Spill the SWE(et) Tea: TanStack Start's "RSC" Controversy

Matt launches a new drama segment ("I monitor the situation"). This week's tea: TanStack Start shipped what it branded React Server Components support — and the ecosystem pushed back that it doesn't follow the actual RSC spec.

Standup / Show Notes