Press Space to continue
Finding signal on Twitter is more difficult than it used to be. We curate the best tweets on topics like AI, startups, and product development every weekday so you can focus on what matters.
Press Space to continue
Press Space to continue
Allen is totally right about this: Pre-AI, startups have *always* had small, 3-5 person dev teams, no PMs, no designers, no UX, no TPM, no {other function} "AI-native startups" are just startups Large companies have bigger teams because... complexity grows. The cost of winning
Today's Pragmatic Engineer newsletter [https://t.co/mxzBi1O6ns] was talking about Meta's misguided attempt to fire everybody and replace them with AI. Zuch was evididently thinking (if you can call it that) that mass layoffs would make them look more like a startup. The attached image👇 is instructive. Meta is on the left and a typical startup is on the right. That smaller team is presented as "AI Native," but the fact is that most effective software organizations, not just startups, have had that small-team structure long before AI was on the scene. It's just a more effective way to work. 10-20 person teams is insanely large—the communication overhead enough will kill you, and many of the roles have a large bureaucratic component that doesn't help one iota in geting software out the door. On the smaller teams, people have flexible roles and everybody is entirely focused on getting a product out the door rather than bureaucracy. It's—dare I say it—agile. And, yes, it will work much better. That's not because of AI, though, it's because of the flexibility and the focus. AI is just a tool that team can use to be more effective. It does not replace people. Thinking you can make a large team more effective by firing half the team reminds me of the thinking—popular years ago—that if you bought lots of books, your kids would somehow become smarter, through osmosis I guess. The thinking confuses corelation (smart kids come from homes with lots of books) with causation (the mere presense of books makes kids smarter). It's not the decorating decision, of course, it's the parents who are reading the books that are the key factor. If you fire half the team without getting rid of the bureaucracy and ineffective ways of working those people supported, you'll just burn out whoever's left. That's exactly what happened at Meta. It's not the size of the team that makes it better; rather, effective teams don't carry the overhead and bad ways of working, so are naturally smaller. Start by fixing the way you work. The team size will take care of itself.