(2) IMHO the risk as an employee in 'speed+mid career' in one of the companies in the AI race can be much higher than in other companies, automating SWE/eng roles requires a lot more mature tech infrastructure (e.g. (1) I think I am here, and that's why I decided in late last year to move to (60%) part time and invest a significant portion of time, beyond what I can do at work (learn to do things differently, and learn about other industries, how they solve similar/adjacent problems and what is unique about them), on my own improvement/innovation at a significant personal cost (40% less income). My judgement is also likely influenced by the fact that I started as a generalist and contractor/small-business-owner if you move from education right into FAANG, you'll likely have a more organized but less innovative personal drive/risk tolerance. I'd expect it really depends on your priority and inclinations. I can't comment on late career, I am not there yet. innovate + mid career = nice place to be, very highly paid and very hard to replace. If the AI paradigm shift materializes, your skills could likely become outdated/largely reduced value and you are at risk of being automated away. speed + mid career = very comfortable position, but the most risky on long term trajectory. cut + mid career = depending on your early career choices and marketable skills and personal inclination for risks, this can be quite challenging or push you out of your comfort zone, into another (hopefully upward) trajectory.

If the bets of the industry do not play out and sentiment/hype on AI cools down, be prepared for a drop in earning down the line and save innovate + early career = be blessed, you're very well paid and you learn state of the art that will hopefully be very marketable. In the long run, it could make you less successful. speed + early career = can be very comfortable to be here, but you're learning less variety than if you see more companies/roles. cut + early career = can be challenging and demoralizing, but in my past experience these moments were those that pushed me into a higher trajectory.

It colors how you view the choices of those leaders in these surveys. Depending on where you are in these buckets and in your personal point in life, the consequences can be very different. The problem as an employee is that you are only in one of those buckets. (Whenever a leader is visionary and good or not impacts the quality of these decisions this is not an endorsement or rebuttal of Google's leaders) If you are a company CEO or senior leader and you think we are in a paradigm shift that threatens the very core products of your company, you cut what you think won't bring future revenue or better revenue growth then, to maintain speed, you focus fewer resources on mature products that have less space to growth or fewer risks to be challenged in the short term then, and use all resources that you freed up to accelerate. Given a finite amount of resources, you can spend them part on 'speed' of execution, to keep up with in AI race, or 'acceleration', to innovate and move faster in the future. If someone wants to move fast and innovate, an employee or a large company like Google, it needs to invest time to do things differently. The problem is that the best interest for the company and for the individual employee do not align in most cases. I think which point of view you have matters. I have thought about this as an employee.

Delete google photos search history