In the tech world, especially AI startups, 70+ hour workweeks (and sometimes more) have shifted from quiet norms to proudly advertised requirements. Job postings and company sites now openly state that only those thrilled by intense, extended hours should apply. The appeal includes sky-high pay, exciting perks, rapid career growth, and the opportunity to help shape groundbreaking technology. The cost? Significant sacrifices in personal time, energy, and overall health.
This intense approach echoes China’s infamous “996” culture (9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week, totaling around 72 hours), which exploded during its tech surge. Prominent figures once hailed it as a “blessing” for ambitious young people, but fierce public criticism over burnout, unpaid extra hours, and serious health dangers soon followed. Authorities eventually stepped in, compelling companies to at least tone down public endorsements.
Today, a similar philosophy is gaining ground in Western tech hubs, driven by the frantic competition to dominate AI. Venture-backed startups believe blistering speed is essential for outpacing competitors and securing survival. Many founders view marathon hours as simply inevitable in such a high-stakes environment.
Proponents insist that team members who flourish here do so voluntarily, they see the work as deeply engaging and mission-driven, almost like a calling rather than a conventional job. Some leaders liken their teams to top-tier athletes: fueled by passion, focus, and collective purpose instead of fixed timetables.
Skeptics push back hard, arguing that more hours don’t automatically mean more output. Studies and experts repeatedly show that productivity often peaks and then plummets beyond a certain point, frequently, a 70-hour week yields results comparable to (or worse than) a well-managed 50-hour one due to fatigue and diminishing returns.
The health toll is even more alarming: global research ties chronic overwork to elevated chances of cardiovascular problems, strokes, chronic stress, and mental health crises. In the most severe instances, it has been linked to tragic fatalities, something already documented in cultures with entrenched long-hour traditions.
Underlying these dynamics is a real imbalance of power. Not every employee who signs up truly chooses it freely. Factors like economic instability, visa restrictions, scarce alternative opportunities, or the fear of missing out on the AI boom can coerce people into accepting grueling conditions, even when framed as “optional.”
While other sectors increasingly experiment with four-day weeks, remote flexibility, and results-oriented models, the tech/AI space remains split between two competing visions: grinding longer versus working smarter. Reform advocates point out that improved planning, sharper focus, streamlined processes and yes, leveraging AI tools themselves, could accelerate real progress without grinding people down.
The core issue is far from settled. As artificial intelligence continues transforming entire industries at warp speed, the biggest test ahead may not be raw technical prowess, but whether meaningful advancement can happen without stretching human endurance to unsustainable extremes.
