Remote work threatens the foundation of the commercial real estate market. Expect a huge push to get people back into the office - especially if there is softness in the job market.
Are the incentives really there? Obviously the people with the real estate would like this, but if they were really that influential, you'd also see a huge push for private offices (=> more space per employee, more real-estate demand), which alas we don't.
I think if you see companies shying away from remote work it'll really just be because it isn't proving effective -- because companies will be losing out on huge recruiting and cost-advantages in doing so.
I've been working remote for a while, and I'm still pretty skeptical. It's definitely a lot harder to build relationships, which are super-important, I think.
Maybe a hybrid model with lots of frequent in-person work retreats could be ideal.
The biggest thing would be for those that own their premises, who would have to take impairments (write downs) on the values of their assets. Their lease liabilities also start to look exorbitant and many will be forced to act on this, cutting these leases and recognize the lease cancellation cost all at once (usually office leases require all payments for the contract term to cancel), taking a large financial knock upfront.
Basically large knocks on their profit in the very short term.
well, as a counter point, it could be a huge win for real estate if given they could convert the office space into apartments for people which is much needed. I know these buildings aren't setup in regards to plumbing and what not, but we can adapt.
Commercial zoned real estate is typically more expensive than residential because commercial tenants have more money, so the landlords who control zoning boards arrange to keep commercial rents high by limiting the supply even more than they do for residential housing.
If demand falls off the price will decline. They might respond by rezoning some commercial into residential, which would be great for residential buyers, but the existing landlords would not be pleased by anything that makes any real estate more affordable (i.e. less valuable).
Which is, of course, good. But they're going to try to prevent it any way they can.
Be that as it may, why would corporations that are tenants rather than landlords make decisions on that basis? Remote work saves companies a lot of money on office space.
The C-suite of the company I worked for during lockdown fretted a lot about the lack of usage of the office space. The problem they had was that they had a long-term lease on the building. They couldn't get out of it, and it burned a lot of money.
They had a political problem with investors (why are you wasting all this money of office space that nobody is going to?) and getting people back into the office was the easiest way to take that heat off of them.
They did eventually force everyone back in the office, but I had moved on shortly before that happened.
Getting 80% of what you're paying for space you don't need is much better than getting 0%. Then you get to claim a big cost reduction this year and a big cost reduction when the lease expires and you can dump the unneeded space entirely.
Does it threaten it or does it just threaten what's so far been established?
Presumably less demand for space will reduce cost of that space allowing for smaller, newer, experimental businesses to be able to buy into that space.
Commercial space can become less about being a place to work or to store a bunch of products to sell, to places where people meet and hangout, to train and collaborate, and to build synergies between businesses that benefit from sharing resources.
> He further added that OpenAI’s some of the best talents are working remotely. He said, "some of our best people are remote, and we will continue to support it always, so please don't let hating SF stop you from applying to OpenAI! I don't like the open air fentanyl markets either.”
The above line seems to contradict the part about '..worst mistake of the tech industry'
I think claiming something is a problem while doing the thing that you say is a problem and in doing so generating the largest and fastest pile of valuation $$$$ in the history of man kind is a problem.
If wanted to be open and honest he would be attaching the wealthiest and paltry wealth and corporate taxes, not those on the bottom suffering from medical conditions like chemical addiction.
Hey, it could be worse! People could be working for Altman's other plaything Worldcoin, collecting retinal scans of the poor and desperate in India, Indonesia and parts of Africa and handing out company scrip as 'compensation'.
It's almost like Sam Altman is desperately trying to downplay the significance of remote work, while simultaneously relying on it for OpenAI's success. What a paradox, amirite?
Hypocrisy from the guy who is both publicly an AI doomer with a stocked AI apocalypse retreat and an AI firm CEO promoting his product as either near or actually being AGI?
Sounds like Mike Judge needs to bring Silicon Valley back because reality has jumped the shark and made the original series seem mundane in retrospect. He needs to up the ante.
Given what we've seen of Altman's success [1], what's more likely: that he believes something so nonsensical, or that this article is badly written and the GP comment inaccurate?
[1] To be clear, I have doubts about just how far LLM's can continue to improve and how much they will really transform the world; but the influence of OpenAI so far is plain for all to see.
I could not disagree more. At least for the last decade in the places I've worked (major tech companies), everyone has been doing "remote work" anyway even though they were in the office.
I mean, meetings were held online, discussion took place through chat, etc., between people literally sitting in cubes next to each other. Everything is just more efficient and less disruptive that way.
Working from home changed no work processes at all, at least where I worked, introduced no additional social separation, and yielded large benefits for individuals, teams, and the company.
You clearly didn't read the article and came to react from the headline. He says the earlier the stage and the more unclear the more you need to spend time together.
His general comment is about full 100% transition from in office to remote.
I agree with this. You need SOME time in person, especially with an early stage startup.
I did read the article, and I did understand it. I just disagree with his position.
> You need SOME time in person
I'll agree with this. But it can be on an as-needed basis, not a regularly scheduled thing. This is how I've done it in my own startups. I had office space for people who wanted to come into the office (many prefer that), but it was not mandatory. We'd have in-person meetings every so often as needed. On average, this was about once per month.
While I understand the sentiment that some in-person time may be beneficial, I'd argue that it's not a strict requirement for a successful work environment. With the advancements in technology and communication tools, we can now maintain strong connections with our colleagues, even without face-to-face interaction. Virtual meetings, team-building activities, and online workshops can serve as effective substitutes for in-person gatherings, allowing teams to stay connected and collaborate effectively.
The key lies in fostering a culture of open communication and trust among team members, regardless of their physical location. By prioritizing these values and leveraging available technology, it's possible to create a cohesive and productive remote work environment without the need for in-person meetings. As the landscape of work evolves, it's essential for us to adapt and explore new ways to connect and collaborate, transcending the boundaries of traditional office settings.
The best and most productive I've ever been (at least felt, but I think the results spoke for themselves as well) was when I was able to go into an office, but did not have to.
There is some tragedy of the commons there though. It was quite convenient to have most everyone in the office on a given day if I decided at 11am it might be nice to switch gears. I also lived literally across the street for one job, and about an average 18 minute door to door commute on public transit for the other. Many others on the teams were in similar living situations so it was easy to call impromptu office days the day before or whatnot as-needed.
I've otherwise worked from home most of my career - but would travel into an office about once a month to see faces and have meetings. Or just go out and have dinners with folks after work. This worked pretty well.
Full remote is tough for me now. I would prefer to be in an office 2-3 days a week, but not forced to be. I do miss the energy of a well functioning team executing together in close proximity.
And to be fair - the worst job I ever had was a 50-90 minute each direction car commute from hell. Literally anything is better than that.
phil21, I see where you're coming from, but let's not forget that we're all different, and what might work for you won't necessarily work for everyone else. It's great that you thrived in that environment, but forcing others into the office because it suits you just ain't the way to go.
There are folks who are far more productive working remotely, and we should respect their preferences too. It's all about balance and understanding that each individual has unique needs when it comes to their work environment.
A hybrid model could be the answer here, allowing people the flexibility to work from the office or home as they see fit. There's no point in squeezing everyone into a one-size-fits-all solution. Let's prioritize productivity and well-being over the illusion of a "perfect" office setup.
And yeah, that 50-90 minute commute you mentioned sounds like absolute hell. We can probably all agree that nobody should be subjected to that.
I believe that's exactly what I was advocating for as the most productive. The ability to choose to go into an office at your convenience. It certainly was in my personal experience, and I wish it an option for everyone. I was simply pointing out how impractical and rare that situation tends to be.
And I also have a different perspective having worked from home "before it was cool" starting back in '98. I've spent far more time in my home office by a factor of 10 to 1 at least than in an office.
Keep in mind with WFH you are forcing everyone to your preferences just as much as work from office. There are far more dynamics at play than personal productivity - team and business productivity as a whole is far more important and rarely talked about.
Many times as a manger of a fully WFH team I'd force some grumpy sysadmin in for a few days a week for a month as we knocked out a project. Sure they got "nothing done" those two days according to them, but they unblocked critical projects for the rest of the team during that time that simply was not happening while they were in their "focus cave". To this day they will tell you it was a waste of their time and WFH would have been far more productive. I highly disagree.
As you say, everyone is different. As are situations. Some of the highest velocity teams I've interacted with were a handful of highly skilled seniors geographically distributed. There are projects I can think of I could call a few folks and form a fully remote team, and other projects I'd very much want to be on-prem "mostly office". It all depends.
There is something to be said about looking back the past 25 years. While I remember some fond moments from my spare bedroom, I remember far more from in-office interactions. I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about that fact in another 20 years.
Edit: I do wonder how opinions would differ if we invented free teleportation tomorrow. I wonder how much of this is commute vs. actual preferred work environment. For me it's mostly commute - give me a private office people respect and I'd likely prefer it with a teleportation pad in my living room.
oh, the irony of accusing someone of not reading the article when it appears you've missed the crux of his argument. He's not advocating for a 100% remote work lifestyle; He's merely emphasizing the significant benefits that remote work has to offer.
Of course, there's value in spending time together, especially for early-stage startups. The creative sparks that fly in face-to-face brainstorming sessions can be unparalleled. However, striking a balance between in-person and remote work is key. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.
Remote work has proven its worth in productivity, work-life balance, and environmental impact, among other aspects. To ignore those factors in favor of a rigid, in-office culture would be a disservice to the progress we've made thus far.
Let's not be so quick to dismiss remote work as a whole just because of its potential limitations in specific contexts. Rather, let's embrace its benefits, while acknowledging that a hybrid approach can provide the best of both worlds. Ultimately, isn't that what we're all after—finding a balance that maximizes productivity, creativity, and overall well-being?
Seems to me the market has spoken. Mechanized travel is toxic and expensive. Offices AND homes are toxic and expensive. Personal devices AND job devices are toxic and expensive. There’s a lot of duplication going on to satisfy career roleplay.
What a shock the people who will still be around, growing increasingly frustrated with Boomers and GenX demanding full speed ahead as usual, what a shock those coming up after are choosing a different route.
Around 13-14, teens brains deprioritize moms voice for new information. We are stateful beings. It’s not a stretch the need to seek new information runs our entire lives. Boomers and GenX are selling “more of the same!”
How sad if the latest iteration of the professional managerial class is told to take a hike.
How we don’t see forcing the same old on the kids as tacit ageism against youth, I have no idea. Anyone that’s decided not to join a religion leveraged their free agency to blow off an elders sensibilities. “American Civic Life” of the last 50-60 years is not a divine mandate.
We didn’t sign contracts to prop up VCs choices, or leases.
JohnFen, your observation is as sharp as a finely honed knife. It's true that in many tech companies, remote work practices have been silently integrated into daily office routines for years now.
In the pre-pandemic world, remote communication tools allowed us to streamline our work processes, making them more efficient and less disruptive. As you pointed out, this level of efficiency has been achieved even when sitting in adjacent cubes. The shift to a fully remote environment simply built upon these practices, ultimately reaping benefits for individuals, teams, and the company as a whole.
An interesting point to consider is the potential for increased focus and productivity in a remote setting. Without the distractions of a traditional office environment, individuals can better tailor their workspaces and schedules to suit their personal preferences and needs. This level of customization can lead to a heightened sense of ownership over one's work, which in turn boosts motivation and productivity.
Another aspect to ponder is the impact of remote work on employee retention. Companies that embrace remote work may find themselves better equipped to retain top talent by offering an additional layer of flexibility that is highly valued by many professionals. This not only benefits the employees but also saves the company from the costs associated with turnover and training new hires.
In essence, remote work is more than a fleeting trend; it's an evolution of the modern workspace that has been in motion long before it became a necessity. Embracing this shift will undoubtedly yield benefits on both individual and organizational levels, all while maintaining a high level of efficiency.
I also find a corner office, high floor, prime aspect with a view over a major metropolis to be beneficial to my productivity. 500sq ft++, with private bathroom should do it. Also outdoor roof space, optional but it really is the difference between 5x and 10x for me.
The mistake was doing the transition suddenly with no foresight or planning. Remote is possible but the systems and culture need to be ready for it first.
> He said, "some of our best people are remote, and we will continue to support it always, so please don't let hating SF stop you from applying to OpenAI! I don't like the open air fentanyl markets either.”
I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the reporting is terrible, not that the guy is an idiot and can not stick to a consistent thought process in the course of a single 30 minute panel at a conference.
I think that if you live in SF and are a CEO then trying to get people in person makes sense. If you are anywhere else then you gain an awful lot from the recruitment flexibility of remote.
But as a former eng manager at Mozilla used to say, sometimes the best tool for remote work is a plane.
> Altman also spoke about the future of AI. According to Altman, AI needs to be treated with “extreme seriousness” as the tech might have “existential risk” attached to it.
I really, really wish that OpenAI would start behaving as if they believed this.
They have a philosophy which may be wrong but is not entirely incoherent (expose risk as capacity becomes available, so we aren't caught off-guard by high-capacity risks we can't recover from).
And let's be honest, GPT-4 is vastly better aligned than any of the other LLMs. Not a super high bar, but it's a bar.
> GPT-4 is vastly better aligned than any of the other LLMs.
If I'm being completely honest, I can't judge that at all, because it's far from clear to me what, specifically, people mean by "alignment" when they use that term. And I'm pretty sure that different people are meaning different things.
When you actually look at the claim Altman can defend from his own experience, it's not that remote work doesn't work for "the tech industry"; it's that remote work doesn't work for early stage startups. But most of "the tech industry" is not early stage startups. Most of the people working in the tech industry could still be working remotely, while at the same time the small fraction of them that are working at early stage startups could be working in person in an office (or hangout space, or whatever), and the tech industry would do just fine.
Unfortunately, when I look at Altman's track record as a pundit (as opposed to as a startup developer), this kind of schoolboy error is what I usually see.
So two friends living in two different places can never build a product and then business around it together. They must be sitting within one meter proximity or the magic potion doesn't work.
Why don't you show us successful startups where people built it fully remotely without meeting each other in person? Sam is claiming that in early stage startups, one need some in-person interaction which I fully agree with.
> Sam is claiming that in early stage startups, one need some in-person interaction
He's claiming that, but that's not all he's claiming. His claim about remote work being a big mistake for the tech industry is much broader than just early stage startups. But as far as I can tell, he has no real basis for his claim except for early stage startups; so his claim could be true for them but false for the tech industry as a whole.
I don't want to out myself, but the company I work for is a smallish startup (<100 people now) that has revenue, and closed a multimillion dollar round last year. Most of the people there have never met in person (I've been there for >2 years and have not met any of my coworkers, and only one is in my country, at the opposite end)
While some of the execs have met in person now, the whole thing was bootstrapped by a handful of people before they met.
I do not know much about startups.. but there are many, many successful projects that have been fully remote - Linux, GNU, Debian, etc. Almost all open source projects I know of do not need an office space.
Yeah, if you are just pumping out generic jira ticket work which doesn't require interaction with anyone else, of course remote works well. If you are actually trying to move fast, throw ideas around, and collaborate, nothing beats being in the same room.
Video calls are a poor replacement to real life interactions. Otherwise the air travel industry would have been crippled by now.
Video calls are a perfect replacement, those that can't do it generally either have: a poor video call culture (people avoiding calls etc., Not turning on video, calls been seen as way too formal and rigid) or just can't use technology effectively.
He does claim that, but you can extend it to early-state projects, even at big companies. It also makes onboarding harder, so you have to include that factor, too.
Yes, that's certainly where he gets his reputation on HN from. He's largely considered not-that-impressive off HN (e.g., people who have worked for or with him and I say that as someone in that category).
Ha! I didn't know he was involved with that coin. This explains all the fud he's pushing for. Probably recruited some of the crypto types to make waves on open ai's behalf.
hah, you've got a point there! It's important to remember that even influential figures in tech aren't infallible, and they too can have a few, let's say, less-than-stellar moments. While Sam's journey with Loopt might not have been a "revolutionary unicorn," his contributions to the industry shouldn't be completely dismissed.
That being said, it's always healthy to question and scrutinize the opinions of tech leaders, as their perspectives can sometimes be out-of-touch with the reality experienced by the average worker. So, let's just say Sam's take on remote work might be one of those moments where we take it with a grain of salt and a hint of humor.
I read it as this guy failed to build a distributed team that would meet his expectations and now extrapolates it to the entire industry. I have heard similar conclusions from a founder who invested a lot of money in a big fancy office in a great location only to discover that half of the team prefers full remote. The team was ready to work this way, the founder was not.
Broadly speaking, this is the entire RTO vs. RW debate. Over-extrapolation mixed with religious zeal. That there are multiple optima is anathema in this context.
- RTO Bosses telling others it’s time to return to the office or news articles about their opinion.
- RW Individuals in the comments saying that they are remote and it’s actually working great, these bosses can go to hell
I work on a team that’s split, with some people choosing to go to the office once or twice a week. For our team it seems to be working very well, but as a fully remote worker, I’m firmly in category 2.
> Discussing about the importance of working from office for a startup, Altman noted, “The more unclear and early the product is, the more in-person time the team needs to grind together," he added.
If you actually look at the quote and not the flamebait title, he says the "experiment" of there being no loss to creativity with remote work is over, and that the tech isn't there yet for early-stage startups.
I assume he’s got either direct or indirect links to commercial realestate; as an owner or investor or something else.
It makes literally 0 business sense to be forking out anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand per employee per month to give them a space to work, when that can just be avoided.
The amount of cost and overheads involved; from insurance to upkeep to rent to OHS - a work space is probably the next biggest expense for a company after salaries. One that can be pruned with very little pushback. And unlike an employee, that’s an expense that’s usually on much, much longer terms (decades in a lot of instances).
No alleged productivity gains are worth the time / cost, other than managers wanting to see the kingdom they rule over or they sit to gain from paying that money somehow.
I agree, but shouldn't we expect to see some 100% remote businesses eat the lunch of the old dinosaurs in their highrises? I would think that would be the best proof.
Linux is doing rather well. Not a business but the people building it have eaten's microsft's server market pretty well. That's what happens when you let engineers do their jobs.
I know of a few companies around the uk, one is mythic beasts, a hosting company. Gitlab is also successful, canonical too. Thing is it doesnt matter. If a client needs me onsite to brainstorm then i dont mind it. But there needs to be a valid reason and not just because of an insecure managed’s lack of skill in using modern tech, or worse, to fill voids in people’s lives. Focused work is best done in a quiet place, and for some that’s their own home and their own office. Being surrounded by things you like and a setting you like makes you more productive.
That's true (that this will be an interesting litmus test) but I doubt it can be seen so quickly.
Almost everybody went remote 3 years ago (though some were already), and now the dinosaurs (but maybe also lots of imitate-the-big-guys companies, too?) are walking it back.
So I think it will take more time to be able to differentiate those results.
you however, signed an employment contract with them.
if the lease brings down the ship, youll need to jump. rather than push for wfh at your current job, i think youd be better off moving to a wfh competitor instead?
Obviously the "indirect" part of the post you are responding to applies.
Your last sentence seems to indicate that you know more than us - if so, enlighten us please about the incentive situation of Mr. Altman. (Whose products I value quite a lot, I will say)
Yes (did not doubt that), but this is of course only one part of the puzzle. Remember that the assumption of the post you responded too suggested incentives tied to real estate (stock in real estate sector might already be enough), and not about salary/stock in OpenAI. What about other engagements, promises made and so on? Has he declared that incentive-wise there is nothing else than OpenAI going on for him?
His level of compensation means nothing for his mistaken feelings that in-office is coming back and remote is dead, and it doesn't mean that part of his psyche likes to see butts in chairs to make himself feel like a boss. He's still human.
> I assume he’s got either direct or indirect links to commercial realestate; as an owner or investor or something else.
This isn't necessarily the case.
Most of the people calling for an end to remote work do not, I suspect, fall into this category—they're managers and execs of all kinds of companies.
What they get out of it isn't more money. It's more control. It's a return to a world where "verify by eye that the employee has their butt in their seat" is an acceptable method of "managing". It's a validation of their worldview that employees are all lazy slackers who are constantly looking for ways to defraud the company.
And underlying all of that, it's simply a return to the world they knew before. This new world, where workers get to work remotely and be responsible for themselves, is Different, and therefore Confusing and/or Scary.
I worked 40% remote from 2002 until the pandemic, when I (like all my colleagues) went to 100% wfh. Now we don't even have an office anymore. I've never been more productive, or happier with my work. In my experience, Sam Altman is just wrong.
All open source projects are remote, including Linux. That's a rather exceptional. Not a company but shows that great, complex, engineering can be built remotely. Probably because engineers need focus and time to think. Gitlab is also fully remote.
Nah, I'm good. I have been much more productive at home than I've ever been in the office. Happier too; I'm saving 2 hours of travel time per day, that I now get to spend on my hobbies. Not going back.
Right there with ya! Staying home has so many perks. And hey, let's not forget the environmental impact: less commuting means less pollution and fewer traffic jams. Plus, by embracing remote work, we're not just lining the pockets of big landlords and property owners. We're taking control of our time, our space, and our lives, all while doing our bit for the planet. No turning back now!
I can't help but feel that Sam Altman's statement dismissing remote work as the "worst mistake of the tech industry" is not only greedy but also shortsighted.
Personally, remote work has given me the flexibility to balance my work and personal life, while also allowing me to collaborate with talented individuals from around the globe. It has broken down barriers and enabled us to build a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
By brushing off remote work, we are ignoring the countless benefits it has brought to both employees and employers. I've seen my own commute times reduced, experienced better work-life balance, and enjoyed improved mental health, all thanks to remote work. Additionally, businesses can save on operational costs due to decreased office space requirements.
The environmental impact of remote work should not be understated either. As someone who used to commute daily, I've come to appreciate how reduced commutes can lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a cleaner, more sustainable planet.
Living in a world where technology enables us to collaborate and communicate seamlessly from anywhere, why should we restrict ourselves to the confines of a physical office? Remote work has the power to create better solutions, foster innovation, and improve the overall quality of life for everyone involved.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
398 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 136 ms ] threadI think if you see companies shying away from remote work it'll really just be because it isn't proving effective -- because companies will be losing out on huge recruiting and cost-advantages in doing so.
I've been working remote for a while, and I'm still pretty skeptical. It's definitely a lot harder to build relationships, which are super-important, I think.
Maybe a hybrid model with lots of frequent in-person work retreats could be ideal.
If demand falls off the price will decline. They might respond by rezoning some commercial into residential, which would be great for residential buyers, but the existing landlords would not be pleased by anything that makes any real estate more affordable (i.e. less valuable).
Which is, of course, good. But they're going to try to prevent it any way they can.
They had a political problem with investors (why are you wasting all this money of office space that nobody is going to?) and getting people back into the office was the easiest way to take that heat off of them.
They did eventually force everyone back in the office, but I had moved on shortly before that happened.
Getting 80% of what you're paying for space you don't need is much better than getting 0%. Then you get to claim a big cost reduction this year and a big cost reduction when the lease expires and you can dump the unneeded space entirely.
Name something that can't be used at all by anyone for any purpose.
Presumably less demand for space will reduce cost of that space allowing for smaller, newer, experimental businesses to be able to buy into that space.
Commercial space can become less about being a place to work or to store a bunch of products to sell, to places where people meet and hangout, to train and collaborate, and to build synergies between businesses that benefit from sharing resources.
The above line seems to contradict the part about '..worst mistake of the tech industry'
https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/21/sam-altmans-worldcoin-want...
Article isn't that clear.
Who would expect that?
Sounds like Mike Judge needs to bring Silicon Valley back because reality has jumped the shark and made the original series seem mundane in retrospect. He needs to up the ante.
[1] To be clear, I have doubts about just how far LLM's can continue to improve and how much they will really transform the world; but the influence of OpenAI so far is plain for all to see.
I mean, meetings were held online, discussion took place through chat, etc., between people literally sitting in cubes next to each other. Everything is just more efficient and less disruptive that way.
Working from home changed no work processes at all, at least where I worked, introduced no additional social separation, and yielded large benefits for individuals, teams, and the company.
His general comment is about full 100% transition from in office to remote.
I agree with this. You need SOME time in person, especially with an early stage startup.
> You need SOME time in person
I'll agree with this. But it can be on an as-needed basis, not a regularly scheduled thing. This is how I've done it in my own startups. I had office space for people who wanted to come into the office (many prefer that), but it was not mandatory. We'd have in-person meetings every so often as needed. On average, this was about once per month.
The key lies in fostering a culture of open communication and trust among team members, regardless of their physical location. By prioritizing these values and leveraging available technology, it's possible to create a cohesive and productive remote work environment without the need for in-person meetings. As the landscape of work evolves, it's essential for us to adapt and explore new ways to connect and collaborate, transcending the boundaries of traditional office settings.
There is some tragedy of the commons there though. It was quite convenient to have most everyone in the office on a given day if I decided at 11am it might be nice to switch gears. I also lived literally across the street for one job, and about an average 18 minute door to door commute on public transit for the other. Many others on the teams were in similar living situations so it was easy to call impromptu office days the day before or whatnot as-needed.
I've otherwise worked from home most of my career - but would travel into an office about once a month to see faces and have meetings. Or just go out and have dinners with folks after work. This worked pretty well.
Full remote is tough for me now. I would prefer to be in an office 2-3 days a week, but not forced to be. I do miss the energy of a well functioning team executing together in close proximity.
And to be fair - the worst job I ever had was a 50-90 minute each direction car commute from hell. Literally anything is better than that.
There are folks who are far more productive working remotely, and we should respect their preferences too. It's all about balance and understanding that each individual has unique needs when it comes to their work environment.
A hybrid model could be the answer here, allowing people the flexibility to work from the office or home as they see fit. There's no point in squeezing everyone into a one-size-fits-all solution. Let's prioritize productivity and well-being over the illusion of a "perfect" office setup.
And yeah, that 50-90 minute commute you mentioned sounds like absolute hell. We can probably all agree that nobody should be subjected to that.
And I also have a different perspective having worked from home "before it was cool" starting back in '98. I've spent far more time in my home office by a factor of 10 to 1 at least than in an office.
Keep in mind with WFH you are forcing everyone to your preferences just as much as work from office. There are far more dynamics at play than personal productivity - team and business productivity as a whole is far more important and rarely talked about.
Many times as a manger of a fully WFH team I'd force some grumpy sysadmin in for a few days a week for a month as we knocked out a project. Sure they got "nothing done" those two days according to them, but they unblocked critical projects for the rest of the team during that time that simply was not happening while they were in their "focus cave". To this day they will tell you it was a waste of their time and WFH would have been far more productive. I highly disagree.
As you say, everyone is different. As are situations. Some of the highest velocity teams I've interacted with were a handful of highly skilled seniors geographically distributed. There are projects I can think of I could call a few folks and form a fully remote team, and other projects I'd very much want to be on-prem "mostly office". It all depends.
There is something to be said about looking back the past 25 years. While I remember some fond moments from my spare bedroom, I remember far more from in-office interactions. I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about that fact in another 20 years.
Edit: I do wonder how opinions would differ if we invented free teleportation tomorrow. I wonder how much of this is commute vs. actual preferred work environment. For me it's mostly commute - give me a private office people respect and I'd likely prefer it with a teleportation pad in my living room.
Of course, there's value in spending time together, especially for early-stage startups. The creative sparks that fly in face-to-face brainstorming sessions can be unparalleled. However, striking a balance between in-person and remote work is key. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario.
Remote work has proven its worth in productivity, work-life balance, and environmental impact, among other aspects. To ignore those factors in favor of a rigid, in-office culture would be a disservice to the progress we've made thus far.
Let's not be so quick to dismiss remote work as a whole just because of its potential limitations in specific contexts. Rather, let's embrace its benefits, while acknowledging that a hybrid approach can provide the best of both worlds. Ultimately, isn't that what we're all after—finding a balance that maximizes productivity, creativity, and overall well-being?
Almost half of the upcoming generation(s) of political and industry leaders socialize online more than offline.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35780201
Seems to me the market has spoken. Mechanized travel is toxic and expensive. Offices AND homes are toxic and expensive. Personal devices AND job devices are toxic and expensive. There’s a lot of duplication going on to satisfy career roleplay.
What a shock the people who will still be around, growing increasingly frustrated with Boomers and GenX demanding full speed ahead as usual, what a shock those coming up after are choosing a different route.
Around 13-14, teens brains deprioritize moms voice for new information. We are stateful beings. It’s not a stretch the need to seek new information runs our entire lives. Boomers and GenX are selling “more of the same!”
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2022/04/teenager-brai...
How sad if the latest iteration of the professional managerial class is told to take a hike.
How we don’t see forcing the same old on the kids as tacit ageism against youth, I have no idea. Anyone that’s decided not to join a religion leveraged their free agency to blow off an elders sensibilities. “American Civic Life” of the last 50-60 years is not a divine mandate.
We didn’t sign contracts to prop up VCs choices, or leases.
In the pre-pandemic world, remote communication tools allowed us to streamline our work processes, making them more efficient and less disruptive. As you pointed out, this level of efficiency has been achieved even when sitting in adjacent cubes. The shift to a fully remote environment simply built upon these practices, ultimately reaping benefits for individuals, teams, and the company as a whole.
An interesting point to consider is the potential for increased focus and productivity in a remote setting. Without the distractions of a traditional office environment, individuals can better tailor their workspaces and schedules to suit their personal preferences and needs. This level of customization can lead to a heightened sense of ownership over one's work, which in turn boosts motivation and productivity.
Another aspect to ponder is the impact of remote work on employee retention. Companies that embrace remote work may find themselves better equipped to retain top talent by offering an additional layer of flexibility that is highly valued by many professionals. This not only benefits the employees but also saves the company from the costs associated with turnover and training new hires.
In essence, remote work is more than a fleeting trend; it's an evolution of the modern workspace that has been in motion long before it became a necessity. Embracing this shift will undoubtedly yield benefits on both individual and organizational levels, all while maintaining a high level of efficiency.
I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that the reporting is terrible, not that the guy is an idiot and can not stick to a consistent thought process in the course of a single 30 minute panel at a conference.
But as a former eng manager at Mozilla used to say, sometimes the best tool for remote work is a plane.
I really, really wish that OpenAI would start behaving as if they believed this.
And let's be honest, GPT-4 is vastly better aligned than any of the other LLMs. Not a super high bar, but it's a bar.
If I'm being completely honest, I can't judge that at all, because it's far from clear to me what, specifically, people mean by "alignment" when they use that term. And I'm pretty sure that different people are meaning different things.
Unfortunately, when I look at Altman's track record as a pundit (as opposed to as a startup developer), this kind of schoolboy error is what I usually see.
He's claiming that, but that's not all he's claiming. His claim about remote work being a big mistake for the tech industry is much broader than just early stage startups. But as far as I can tell, he has no real basis for his claim except for early stage startups; so his claim could be true for them but false for the tech industry as a whole.
There are plenty of companies working fully remote of different sizes ranging from a duo to a trio of three up to few hundred.
The claim is as absurd as startups not having mechanical keyboards or not using JIRA fail miserably to capture market.
While some of the execs have met in person now, the whole thing was bootstrapped by a handful of people before they met.
Video calls are a poor replacement to real life interactions. Otherwise the air travel industry would have been crippled by now.
edit: Like, I'm only half snarky. He ran like one ok company and then got pretty much coronated into OpenAI.
edit: edit: Like really. It was a company that let you share your phone location. Revolutionary unicorn to the moon on steroids for sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopt
Hard work, a good plan, and a good idea are what buy you the lottery ticket. But it's still a lottery.
That being said, it's always healthy to question and scrutinize the opinions of tech leaders, as their perspectives can sometimes be out-of-touch with the reality experienced by the average worker. So, let's just say Sam's take on remote work might be one of those moments where we take it with a grain of salt and a hint of humor.
- RTO Bosses telling others it’s time to return to the office or news articles about their opinion.
- RW Individuals in the comments saying that they are remote and it’s actually working great, these bosses can go to hell
I work on a team that’s split, with some people choosing to go to the office once or twice a week. For our team it seems to be working very well, but as a fully remote worker, I’m firmly in category 2.
> Discussing about the importance of working from office for a startup, Altman noted, “The more unclear and early the product is, the more in-person time the team needs to grind together," he added.
It makes literally 0 business sense to be forking out anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand per employee per month to give them a space to work, when that can just be avoided.
The amount of cost and overheads involved; from insurance to upkeep to rent to OHS - a work space is probably the next biggest expense for a company after salaries. One that can be pruned with very little pushback. And unlike an employee, that’s an expense that’s usually on much, much longer terms (decades in a lot of instances).
No alleged productivity gains are worth the time / cost, other than managers wanting to see the kingdom they rule over or they sit to gain from paying that money somehow.
Every massive tech company that reigns today was built at least a decade ago.
Almost everybody went remote 3 years ago (though some were already), and now the dinosaurs (but maybe also lots of imitate-the-big-guys companies, too?) are walking it back.
So I think it will take more time to be able to differentiate those results.
There is a lot of resource intense duplication to provide office spaces, office furniture, office computers… oh look I have that stuff at home.
Information loss due to generational churn is societies entropy.
The elite are just people. This reality does not put a divine mandate on me to serve some people who happen to be alive when I am.
if the lease brings down the ship, youll need to jump. rather than push for wfh at your current job, i think youd be better off moving to a wfh competitor instead?
Your bias is clouding your judgement.
Your last sentence seems to indicate that you know more than us - if so, enlighten us please about the incentive situation of Mr. Altman. (Whose products I value quite a lot, I will say)
This is public information.
This isn't necessarily the case.
Most of the people calling for an end to remote work do not, I suspect, fall into this category—they're managers and execs of all kinds of companies.
What they get out of it isn't more money. It's more control. It's a return to a world where "verify by eye that the employee has their butt in their seat" is an acceptable method of "managing". It's a validation of their worldview that employees are all lazy slackers who are constantly looking for ways to defraud the company.
And underlying all of that, it's simply a return to the world they knew before. This new world, where workers get to work remotely and be responsible for themselves, is Different, and therefore Confusing and/or Scary.
Personally, remote work has given me the flexibility to balance my work and personal life, while also allowing me to collaborate with talented individuals from around the globe. It has broken down barriers and enabled us to build a more diverse and inclusive workforce.
By brushing off remote work, we are ignoring the countless benefits it has brought to both employees and employers. I've seen my own commute times reduced, experienced better work-life balance, and enjoyed improved mental health, all thanks to remote work. Additionally, businesses can save on operational costs due to decreased office space requirements.
The environmental impact of remote work should not be understated either. As someone who used to commute daily, I've come to appreciate how reduced commutes can lead to a significant decrease in greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to a cleaner, more sustainable planet.
Living in a world where technology enables us to collaborate and communicate seamlessly from anywhere, why should we restrict ourselves to the confines of a physical office? Remote work has the power to create better solutions, foster innovation, and improve the overall quality of life for everyone involved.
If you do not believe Altman falls under any of these categories, I’m happy to hear why so.
As we have had to warn you about flamewar comments in the past and asked you refrain from personal attacks just a month ago, I've banned this account.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35457642 (April 2023)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29621470 (Dec 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28995867 (Oct 2021)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23174566 (May 2020)
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.