Google’s Sergey Brin Demands 60 Hours A Week From Engineers To Build AI That Will Replace Them

The co-founder of Google, Sergey Brin, has made a rare public movement, asking engineers of the technology giant to return to the office five days a week to help improve the AI ​​models which could ultimately reproduce their own work.

The reclusive billionaire, whose net value is estimated at $ 144 billion, has personally returned to the headquarters of Google View, demonstrating his call for an increased sense of emergency.

The catalyst for this renewed concentration on AI is the launch of Chatgpt, which has let google fall back to regain its place in an area where it was once a pioneer. Although Google was at the forefront of AI development, it was Openai and its strategic alliance with Microsoft which seized the commercial advantage, putting Google on the defensive.

In a memo seen by the New York Times, Brin wrote to engineers working on the Gemini AI models of Google, stressing that the “final race towards AG (artificial general intelligence) is underway”. He expressed his confidence that Google had “all the ingredients to win this race”, but underlined the need to “turn” the efforts. Its prescription for success: “60 hours per week is the ideal point of productivity.”

Brin also encouraged engineers to use Google’s own AI models to write their code, arguing that this would make them “the most effective coders and AI scientists in the world”. This directive aligns with a broader trend where heads of technology promote AI tools as a means of improving productivity, but it also exposes deeper irony: Brin effectively asks engineers to use the same technology that could possibly make their role redundant.

The irony of the efficiency led by AI

Generative AI, like Google Gemini, works by ingesting large amounts of data and recognizing models to generate new content, including code. In theory, this technology could automate a large part of coding tasks, leading to higher efficiency. Other technological leaders, such as the CEO of Salesforce, Marc Benioff, have already indicated that AI agents had advanced to the point where they reduce the need for human engineers. Benioff declared during a profit call that Salesforce would not hire more engineers this year, attributing this decision to the success of AI in the management of tasks previously managed by human staff.

However, it is important to see such declarations with skepticism. While the defenders of AI highlight its potential to reduce costs and improve productivity, many believe that business leaders could use media threw around AI as a pretext to reduce workforce, save on labor costs and soothe investors. For example, Salesforce had already reduced 10% of its workforce – around 7,000 employees – under pressure from militant investors to improve beneficiary margins.

AI limitations: the code is not only the code

Although the AI ​​tools can automate the coding of platforms, they have trouble with large-scale complex code bases due to memory constraints. In addition, although AI can generate code extracts, engineers must understand the underlying logic to correct bugs and implement improvements. Ironically, companies like Anthropic, a leading player in AI security research, explicitly ask the candidates to certify that they will not use AI during the request process, highlighting the limits of the work generated by AI.

The fear of engineers is not only that AI could replace them, but that companies can choose to use AI even if it works less well than humans, only as an economic measure. This dynamic recalls a scenario where a manager asks a superior employee to form his younger and cheaper replacement.

Supporters against skeptics: two sides of the AI ​​debate

AI supporters argue that technology will lead to more work, no less, by freeing engineers to focus on more complex projects. By automating trivial coding tasks, engineers could theoretically build more products and make greater innovation. However, skeptics believe that the pressure for the adoption of AI consists less in authorizing engineers and more on the reduction of costs and the rationalization of operations.

The debate goes beyond productivity to the broader dynamic of control of the workplace. The mandate of return to the office is not only a Google phenomenon, but part of a broader trend among business leaders seeking to reaffirm authority over workers who won more flexibility during the COVVI-19 pandemic.

Power shift in Silicon Valley

The technological industry, in particular Silicon Valley, has experienced a change of power. Engineers formerly highly sought after and authorized by remote work opportunities are now faced with a reduced lever effect, because companies like Google reversed their distant working policies. This change comes in a context of mass layoffs and a tightening labor market, which has enabled companies to demand more staff remaining.

Technology giants, including Google, are also encouraged to bring employees back to the office to justify the billions of dollars spent for the sumptuous head office. For example, the Google Mountain View campus, with its futuristic architecture and advanced equipment, represents an important investment that the company would prefer not to waste.

The strand memo adds a embers to the AI ​​debate. On the one hand, his call for arms reflects a real urgency in a competition with high issues with Openai and Microsoft. On the other hand, it highlights a paradox in the AI ​​industry: engineers are invited to build the very tools that could make them obsolete.