/
Navigation
Chronicles
Browse all articles
Explore
Semantic exploration
Research
Entity momentum
Nexus
Correlations & relationships
Story Arc
Topic evolution
Drift Map
Semantic trajectory animation
Posts
Analysis & commentary
Pulse API
Tech news intelligence API
Browse
Entities
Companies, people, products, technologies
Domains
Browse by publication source
Handles
Browse by social media handle
Detection
Concept Search
Semantic similarity search
High Impact Stories
Top coverage by position
Sentiment Analysis
Positive/negative coverage
Anomaly Detection
Unusual coverage patterns
Analysis
Rivalry Report
Compare two entities head-to-head
Semantic Pivots
Narrative discontinuities
Crisis Response
Event recovery patterns
Connected
Search: /
Command: ⌘K
Embeddings: large
TEXXR

Chronicles

The story behind the story

days · browse · Enter similar · o open

A software engineer explains AI fatigue, compounded by a FOMO treadmill of using labs' latest tools, thinking atrophy, and more, alongside boosted productivity

You're using AI to be more productive.  So why are you more exhausted than ever?  The paradox every engineer needs to confront.

Siddhant Khare

Context & Ripple Effects

This account frames AI adoption in engineering as a productivity-exhaustion trade-off: faster output does not necessarily reduce cognitive load when tool switching, fear of missing new releases, and diminished independent problem-solving accumulate.

Subsequent coverage broadened that tension from an individual engineer’s account to reports of longer hours alongside coding-agent adoption and research describing mental fatigue from AI use beyond cognitive capacity.

First-order effects

  • Engineers using rapidly changing AI tools may face a higher cognitive burden even as the tools accelerate parts of their work, making fatigue an immediate constraint on sustained use.
  • The reported “thinking atrophy” concern shifts attention from output speed to whether engineers remain actively engaged in judgment and problem-solving.

Second-order effects

  • Engineering leaders may need to distinguish durable workflow gains from tool churn; pressure to continually trial each lab’s latest release can undermine the time saved by adoption.
  • AI-tool vendors face a usability challenge beyond raw capability: products that fit stable workflows are better positioned than those that require users to repeatedly relearn prompts, interfaces, and habits.

Third-order effects

  • If productivity expectations continue to rise with AI adoption, developer performance may increasingly be judged on throughput while the human costs appear as burnout, longer hours, or weaker skill development.
  • The pattern points toward a market for AI tools whose productivity gains are paired with energy costs—making workflow design and sustainable use part of the value proposition, not merely model performance.

The trend: AI is moving from isolated assistance toward workflow infrastructure, exposing whether productivity gains can be sustained without escalating cognitive and organizational pressure.

Discussion

  • @siddhant_k_code Siddhant Khare on x
    AI was supposed to make us more productive. So why is everyone more exhausted? Each task gets faster. So you do more tasks. Your brain doesn't scale like a GPU. Wrote about it honestly. https://siddhantkhare.com/...
  • @maireadeire Mairead on bluesky
    also “urgency culture” & FOMO was created by the capitalists to move products & money.  It also creates an atmosphere of widespread (population wise) nervous system dysregulation.  People get wind of something & the FOMO gets triggered which = $$ to capitalists.  —  It's populati…
  • @gyttjansfolk Jalle on bluesky
    “When each task takes less time, you don't do fewer tasks.  You do more tasks.  Your capacity appears to expand, so the work expands to fill it.  And then some.  Your manager sees you shipping faster, so the expectations adjust.”  —  siddhantkhare.com/writing/ai- f...
  • @clarityhacker Axel on bluesky
    The FOMO treadmill is real.  Every new model launch creates this pressure to re-evaluate your entire workflow.  Meanwhile the actual productivity gains come from deeply learning one tool, not constantly switching to whatever dropped yesterday.