Stay SaaSy 访谈:从匿名博客到 AI 时代的代币预算与管理哲学 Latent Space 2026-04-13

匿名博客的成长之路

Swyx: 大家好,我是 Swyx。今天我们在远程直播间迎来了一对非常有趣的播客嘉宾。我们以前做过匿名播客,这是第二次,但这次他们本身也是播主。他们就是 Stay SaaSy 团队。伙计们,跟大家打个招呼吧。

Original English

Swyx: Okay, hi. This is Swyx in the remote studio with a very interesting podcast guest duo. We've done a anonymous podcast before and this is our second one. This time though, they are also our podcasters. This is the Stay SaaSy crew. Say hi, guys.

Stay SaaSy PM: 嘿,近况如何?

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Hey, how's it going?

Stay SaaSy EM: 嘿,大家好。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Hey, what's up?

Swyx: 你们中有一位是 Stay SaaSy PM,是哪位?

Original English

Swyx: One of you is Stay SaaSy PM. Which which which one?

Stay SaaSy PM: 是我,这个声音。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah, that's me. This one this voice?

Swyx: 另一位就是 Stay SaaSy EM 了。你们平时是怎么介绍 Stay SaaSy 的?你们的一句话推介是什么?

Original English

Swyx: And then the other one is Stay SaaSy EM. How do you guys introduce Stay SaaSy? What what's the one-liner pitch?

Stay SaaSy PM: 我们的一句话推介是:我们是一个博客,现在我想也成了一个 Twitter (X) 人格、播客人格,专注于构建和扩展技术业务,尤其是从早期的初创阶段一直到你所能达到的任何高度。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: So the one-liner pitch is that we are a blog and now now I guess a Twitter personality or X personality as well as podcast personality about building and scaling really technology businesses, especially from those early startup days all the way out to how far however far you take it.

Swyx: 是的。从我在 Temporal 的日子起就认识你们了,我以前的老板非常迷恋你们。他总是说“这是有史以来最好的博客”。而且它是匿名的,我想先从这里开始:你是如何做大一个匿名博客的?因为你实际上不希望别人知道你是谁。虽然对于认识你的人来说,你并不是完全隐形的,但你甚至该如何开始呢?

Original English

Swyx: Yeah. I know you guys since my temporal days where like my former boss was so in love with you guys. He's like this is the best blog ever and it's anonymous which like again, how do you grow an anonymous blog? Let's just start there, right? Like because you don't actually want people to know. I mean you're you're somewhat dark to like people who do know you, but like how do you even start?

Stay SaaSy EM: 我认为这是一个非常有趣的旅程。在开始阶段,最简单的方法就是不停地发布内容,并尝试在不同地方分享。最简单的答案就是先把内容做出来,看看我们写的东西是否真的有用、够好。但接下来的重点在于:我们如何分发它?如何吸引眼球?当你匿名时,你真的不能让你的朋友去 Twitter 之类的地方转发。

所以我说,在早期,Hacker News 实际上是博客的一个非常强大的增长引擎。在最初阶段,我们每年大概有 5 到 10 篇文章能登上首页,这对我们博客早期的增长是一个巨大的推动。之后,我们从自有网站转向了 Substack。Substack 是一个很棒的社区,它自成体系,我们开始在那里获得用户互动并建立联系。接着我们又加入了 Twitter,在过去的一年里,Twitter 简直成了整体互动的“涡轮增压器”,让我们能更深入地参与社区。

现在我们的生态系统里有博客订阅者、Substack 和 Twitter。最初只是尝试寻找哪怕一丁点儿愿意听我们说话的人,当真的有人听时,那种感觉非常刺激。

最后一点非常令人兴奋的是,当我们看到订阅者增加时,能看到 Stay SaaSy 博客是如何在公司内部流传的。你会看到某个公司的某个人订阅了,你会觉得“太棒了,这家伟大的公司里这么厉害的人在读我们的博客”;一天后,你会看到同一家公司又有两个人订阅,你就知道,哦,有人在内部转发了。有些公司甚至有 20、30 人订阅,而他们是世界上最好的公司之一。我们感觉自己已经进入了几家公司的内部“博客圈”。整个成熟过程非常有随机性,但也非常有成就感。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: I think it's a it was a really interesting journey. So I think at the beginning the easiest way to start was just posting stuff and trying to share it in different locations. And so the simplest answer is just starting getting paints on the board and and seeing if we actually get some writing that's actually useful and good. But then it was really about how do we distribute it and how do we start to get eyeballs on it? And when you're anonymous, it's really like you can't go and and tell your friends to post it on you know on Twitter or something like that. So I would say in the early days Hacker News is actually like a really great growth engine for the blog and we had in its very early days maybe like five to 10 posts a year that would get like front page and that was a a huge sort of boost to our our kind of early growth of the blog. From there we pivoted to Substack off of just having our own kind of website. Substack is a great community and and that is like its own sort of place where we've started to get people engaging and kind of building and that was really great. And then we added Twitter on top of that and that has really been in the last year like for I would say like the overall sort of engagement a total kind of turbo charge on just like engaging the community and kind of being in this kind of um you know whatever sort of ecosystem where now we have the blog and we have subscribers there, we have Substack, we have Twitter. So it was really just trying to find the first inkling that we could get anyone to listen to anything that we were doing and it was thrilling when we had that and then Hacker News was like a a really great boost in the beginning and the only final thing is it's been really exciting when we see the subscribers come in to see the Stay SaaSy blog kind of run through companies. So you'll see like somebody come through at a company you know and you'll see that subscribing like oh, that's awesome. That's like really exciting that this great company and this great person at that company is reading our blog and then a day later you see two more people in from that company subscribe and you're like oh, some people are sharing this around. And there's some companies that you know, we have 20 30 people from and you know, they're one of the best companies in the world and you know, there's there's handfuls of companies that we feel like we've gotten in their sort of internal blogosphere. So that entire sort of maturation process has been very probabilistic but very gratifying.

Stay SaaSy PM: 另一个很有帮助的方面是,无论我们去哪个平台,都保持相同的总体主题和灵魂,但我们会根据平台调整语气。我们的博客一直比较严肃,偶尔会有一两篇搞笑的,我父母有时会说“这篇挺逗的”,但通常我们努力让内容非常务实,是你在日常工作中可以直接使用的 Actionable(可落地的)内容。

如果你关注我们的 Twitter (X),那里就狂野得多了。会有很多 Shitposting(发废文/玩梗)。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah, I think another aspect that has helped a lot is that we keep the same general subject matter no matter what platform we go to and we'll keep sort of the the same soul, but we will definitely adjust the tone and talk about different sorts of things on different platforms. Like our blog has always been much much more serious. There'll be something funny in a blog or two every now and then. My my parents are sometimes like oh, that was that was kind of a funny one. But generally it's we try to make it really right down the middle, really actionable stuff that you can use in your day-to-day. Our X is a lot wilder if if people follow us. Like there there's a lot more stuff. It's more shitposting.

Swyx: 我现在就把屏幕切过去展示一下。

Original English

Swyx: I'm going to put it up on screen right now.

Stay SaaSy PM: 没错,会有更多的玩梗,谈论我们个人生活中发生的疯狂事情,或者 SaaSy EM 小时候的个人生活。我觉得他的童年比我的狂野得多。我们会去那里探索,因为那就是 X 生态系统的本质,是一个寻找乐趣的地方。相比之下,Substack 给人的感觉是我们是来学习的,打开 Substack 就像是去上学。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah, a lot more shitposting, a lot more talking about crazy stuff that happened in our in our personal lives or or the SaaSy EM's personal life as a child. I think he had a much wilder childhood than I did. And and so we will sort of venture out there cuz that's sort of the X ecosystem is about. Like you know, it's a place for fun [laughter] as well. As opposed to Substack, you know, we're kind of here to learn. We're going to school when we open up Substack.

职场中的“云技能”与代币预算

Swyx: [笑] 是的,没错。其实我关注你们是因为这一条推文。我最喜欢的羞辱人的方式是把别人的工作称为一种 “Cloud Skill”(云技能)。我们打算把这个印成 T 恤。你那些偶尔冒出来的推文背后有什么故事吗?

Original English

Swyx: [laughter] Yes, yes. So I actually I think I reached out after this specific one. My favorite insult is calling someone's job a cloud skill. We're going to make a t-shirt out of this one. Is there a story behind like some of your like one-off tweets?

Stay SaaSy EM: 我想说每条推文的来源都不同。可能令人惊讶的一点是,这些内容很少来自我的日常工作。很多是来自与朋友聊他们的工作,你会发现技术行业与机械工程或金融行业竟然惊人地相似。

那一篇推文,是因为我正在和一个做金融的朋友聊天。他在抱怨一个同事,那人回消息非常慢,唯一做的事就是回一封邮件确认某个东西,并肯定你可以去做。我朋友说:“我整天的工作就是在等这个人发一封确认邮件,而且那封信里可能就只有三个固定选项。”

当时我就想,天哪,这大概就是未来完整的“白领工作”吧。然后我就开始思考各种类似这种“回复邮件、决策树基数为 4”的事情。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yeah, I would say like every tweet, you know, comes from different places. One thing that I I sort of uh is is always I think probably maybe surprising is like very little of this actually comes from my day-to-day work. A lot of it comes from like talking to people about their jobs and friends about their jobs and it's like very actually shocking how similar tech is to various you know, mechanical engineering or finance or something like that. So I think that one in particular I was talking to a friend and they're in finance and they were just talking about this co-worker who they were really slow on responding to things and the only thing that they did was kind of respond with an email that like checked one thing and affirmed that you can do it. And so I was talking to this friend and they were like I'm waiting. My whole job is waiting on this person to send an email that just says like one tiny thing and there's like three sections that they could possibly sort of go with it. And I think that's where the inspiration that came from where I was like oh boy, that's a I don't know if that's like a full white collar job in the future. And so yeah, it's then and then from there you know, I started to think about just like all the different things that kind of look like this replying to email the decision tree of cardinality four or something like that, you know.

Swyx: 这是我们的设计师做的样衣图。

Original English

Swyx: My here here's the shirt from our designer.

Stay SaaSy EM: [笑] “滚开。我喜欢。” 抱歉,“滚开,否则我们就用一个很小的 skills.md 替换你。”

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: [laughter] Go away. I love it. Sorry. Go away or we'll replace you with a very small skills.md.

Swyx: 是的。我也想顺便低调宣布一下,我们正在筹备周边商店。撇开玩梗不谈,你们实际上是在真实公司工作的严肃专业人士,我可以作证。你们匿名,但我能保证你们知道自己在说什么。

我们准备了一些话题,对吧?你们在管理团队,分别从 PM 和 EM 的角度。EM 这边,你发了一份话题列表。你想从头开始讨论,还是想给听众一些背景信息?

Original English

Swyx: Yeah, I mean you know, this is like I guess my low-key way of announcing announcing that we're working on a merch store. Um I love it. I love it. [laughter] Okay, so uh shitposting aside, uh you guys are actually serious people working in in a real company that I can vouch. All right, you know, you don't you're anonymous but I can vouch that um you guys know what you're talking about. We prepped some topics, right? You're running teams, PM side, EM side. EM like you maybe sent over a list of topics. We can go top-down if if you want or where would do you want to sort of give people the context to to get into the discussion?

Stay SaaSy EM: 我没什么偏好,我们就从最上面的开始吧。列表顶端是关于管理 AI 预算Token(代币)预算,我认为这非常及时。

在整个 AI 生态中,2025 年很多公司(不仅仅是早期采用者)意识到:“嘿,我们可以利用 AI 极大地改变产出。” 当时大家都在用那些受补贴的工具,感觉好极了。每个员工每月 100 美元,就能得到一个能回答问题的“魔法盒”。

但我认为 2026 年将会变得疯狂。这方面已经开始变得疯狂了,因为我们看到大厂正从这种基于订阅、基于请求的定价模式转向纯粹的 API 定价、基于消耗的定价。网上关于这方面的内容还不多,但我认为这将是人们工作方式最大的变化之一。

大家现在对 AI 替代人类有很多焦虑,我倒没那么担心,因为人能做的事情很多。但我认为,为公司里的每一个人管理流动的 AI 预算,将是管理者面临的一项极其困难的任务

我最近把它类比为:想象一下你的笔记本电脑,有些人的成本是 500 美元,有些人的成本每年是 50,000 美元甚至更多。你如何决定谁该得到什么?大多数公司都有一个简化的假设,即大多数人使用的东西是固定价格或波动极小的。

我认为今年将会出现一个管理和业务运营的“悬崖”:你如何找出所有这些问题的答案?给一个初级工程师、高级工程师或非工程师分配多少 AI 编程工具预算?高级工程师说“我需要双倍预算”,你如何评估?你甚至该如何思考这个决策过程?

这种针对个人的预算管理,在我整个管理生涯中从未见过类似的东西——这种需要实时微调、评估你愿意在个人身上花多少钱的模式。这是一个非常初级但会被快速采用的领域。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yeah, SaaSy DM I don't think I have any preference there, but I think we should start at the top. I mean I think the top of the list is you know, we're we're talking about managing AI budgets and token budgets and I I think that's like very very timely. I think when it comes to sort of the whole AI ecosystem it feels like 2025 is where a lot of companies, not even just sort of like the super early adopters, but a lot of companies realize hey, we can really very materially change our output using AI and they're using these subsidized tools and it was like great. It was good times. Hey, $100 per per employee and I can get this magic box that answers some number of my questions. Um I think 2026 is going to be insane. It's already a little insane on that front because we're seeing a lot of the big players move from kind of subsidy-based request-based pricing to straight-up API pricing, consumption-based pricing. And I haven't seen a ton of content online on this, but I think it's going to be one of the biggest changes in how people work. And we're we talk a lot about there's a lot of angst about sort of replacing, you know, people with AI and stuff like that. I'm actually a little less worried that I think you know, there's all sorts of things. Like there's a lot of things that people can do. I think the task and the skill of managing of a possibly fluid AI budget per person in your company is going to be an incredibly difficult thing for managers to do. Um the kind of thing that I've likened it to recently is like imagine you know, if your laptop, you know, for some people cost $500 and other people cost $50,000 you know, per year or more. How do you decide who gets what? And I think most companies have a very simplifying assumption of most of the things that most people use are fixed price or or very little volatility. And I think there's a a kind of management uh slash sort of business operation cliff that's about to happen this year with how do you figure out the answers to all of that? How do you figure out how much budget do I give a junior engineer versus a senior engineer versus a non-engineer for an AI coding tool? But great, you know, senior engineer says I need you know, double the budget. How do you evaluate that? How do you evaluate that? How do you even think through how you would make the decision on that? And that entire kind of budgeting per person I don't think that there's a single other thing that I can think of in my entire history of management that looks like that, that has that shape of having to real-time somewhat fine-tune [snorts] evaluate how much money you're willing to spend on individuals and and I think that that is sort of like a very very nascent but will be very fast adopted sort of area that people are going to think through.

Stay SaaSy PM: 我觉得最好的类比是公司如何管理高管预算或部门预算。这种转变象征着一个事实:一旦你加入了所有 AI 自动化,而自动化又是昂贵的,那么团队中的一个独立贡献者(IC)就开始占据原本属于一个小团队或部门的空间。

以前公司已经在做这类判断:我们的工程预算是多少,办公室预算是多少,IT、销售预算各是多少,这些预算会随时间上下浮动。但现在,这种波动将发生在每一个员工个人层面

就像管理部门预算一样,我们将面临同样的变量:这里到底需要完成什么工作?这个由 AI 辅助的小组或个人的整体效率如何?业务关键性有多高?我们能否直接计算出投入成本与产出价值的比例?

这些原本针对大群体发生的事情,现在将发生在组织中的每一个人身上。这是一种非常不同的看待**扩展(Scaling)**的方式。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: I'll actually say the best comparison that I could think of is how companies manage more executive budgets or departmental budgets. And I think that you know, way this transition is sort of emblematic of the fact that once you can add all the AI automation, but that automation is expensive People, you know, an individual independent contributor on a team starts to sort of take on the the space within the company of what would have been like a small team or department before. Because companies were already starting to make different judgments, like, okay, our budget for engineering is this, our budget for offices is that, our budget for IT, our budget for sales, you know, and those budgets were going to shift up and down over time, but now we're going to start to see that happening at like the individual employee level. And I think similar to how you would do budgeting across at departments, we're going to have all the same sorts of variables at play, like, what is the literal job that has to be done here? How efficient is this group or is this individual that's aided by AI overall? How business-critical is it? How much are we able to do a really, really direct calculation of the exact value that we're getting out of the cost that goes in? All of these things that were already happening for large groups of people, they're now going to be happening for every single individual across an organization. And and that's a very different way to start to view scaling.

Swyx: 是的,这是在扩展一个“非人”的维度。因为如果你擅长管理 AI,你最终可以运行自己的整个部门。

Original English

Swyx: Yeah, it's it's scaling a non-human dimension, I guess. Uh because you can eventually run your own department, right? If you are good at it.

Stay SaaSy PM: 绝对是这样。这种规模扩展发生得非常快。当然,这种速度会带来很大的不稳定性。

在这种情况下,你可以根据第一性原理提出截然不同的观点。你可以辩称所有的自动化都是好的,我们只是在获取效率,所以应该倾注所有资源。你也可以从风险管理的角度辩称,我们需要非常保守,所有的代币支出(Token Spend)都需要经过严格的财务审计。

这完全没有先例。而没有先例意味着有些人注定会犯错。这在组织内部如何演变——谁被指责,谁获得荣誉——将会非常有趣。

另一件事是,在我待过的每一家公司,预算编制都是非常耗时、充满争议且混乱的。想象一下,把这个过程扩展到你的全体员工,并且每个月都要针对个人重新思考这个问题。我不知道人们现在该如何回答这个问题。

此外,这还会制造出奇怪的业务瓶颈。我们已经看到一些行业里,构建速度超过了分发速度,或者构建速度快于获客速度。当 AI 变得如此强大,你的工程团队会说:“听着,我们可以花更多的 Token,花更多的钱,但它转化回业务的速度和价值跟不上。”

当我们转向基于 AI 的定价时,有些团队必须面对现实:嘿,我们可以花 10 万美元去构建更多产品,但我们无法足够快地将其转化为收入。那时候你该怎么办?如果高绩效员工陷入这种境地,你如何留住他们?

当一个工程师每年可以轻松产生 5 万到 10 万美元的 AI 账单时,这会产生各种蝴蝶效应。这可不是什么天方夜谭。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah, absolutely. And I think that that scaling up is something mainly that's happening really, really quickly. And the speed with which it's happening, of course, is going to be very destabilizing because in a situation like this, I think you can make first principles arguments to start to change your approach in very different ways. You can make the argument that all automation is good and we're we're just getting efficiency and we're just going to pour everything into it. You can also make more of a risk management type of argument that you need to be very, very conservative and that everything needs to be financialized and underwritten to the letter in terms of how much token spend we're going to allow people to use and everything in between. And there's really absolutely no precedent for this. And once you're into a world of no precedent, that means that some people are going to be wrong, and the way that that shakes out in organizations, even down to like, yeah, who gets blamed, who gets credit, that's going to be really, really interesting to see. The other thing is budgeting at every company I've ever been at is like very time-intensive and very controversial and very messy. And so, the idea of scaling that to your entire employee base and thinking on an individual level, maybe as recently as common as every month, you have to kind of think about that question. I don't know how people are going to answer that question right now. I think it's also going to create this sort of world where building is much, much cheaper, it's going to create really weird bottlenecks in businesses. Like, I think there are already businesses, and we're seeing this in the industry, where they can build faster than they can distribute. They can build faster than they can get customers. And so, what do you do when that happens? What do you do when the AI gets so good that you have an engineering team and it's like, listen, we could spend more tokens, we could spend more money here, but it's not returning to the business in a way that is fast enough and valuable enough. And and that's another thing that as we're moving to AI-based pricing, there's going to be some teams in the industry that have to face that reality of, hey, we could spend $100,000 to go and build more product, but we literally cannot turn that into a revenue fast enough. So, what do you do with that? And how do you keep high performers on a team if they end up in that situation? So, I mean, there's all of these sort of butterfly effects that are going to come into the situation when you start to get a world where, you know, an engineer can reasonably rack up a $50,000, $100,000 a year AI bill. Like, that's it's not an insane thing to think could happen, he says.

Swyx: PM,我得告诉你,你的数字报低了。我想提一点,研究人员已经在面对这个问题了。他们有 GPU 研究预算。这种研究预算编制过程现在正转移到工程和产品部门。

我们最近采访了 OpenAI 的一个人,他个人每天消耗 10 亿个 Token。他那个三人的团队每天消耗剩下的 15 亿。每天 10 亿 Token。如果按输入输出的某种比例来算,大约一年要花 250 万美元。

所以,5 万美元根本不算什么。在不久的将来,这可能只是一个技术工程师的全额负载成本的一部分。每年 250 万美元,这才是真正的大头。你必须从一开始就根据第一性原理去思考。

这与我们几十年来习惯的软件开发世界完全不同。以前软件虽然贵,但它的成本是受限于你投入的人力。而且你得先找人,才能知道到底要建什么。现在很多东西都反过来了。

对于正在扩张的公司来说,最有趣的一点是:每当竞赛规则变得复杂,你脱颖而出的机会就增加了。就像我们玩了几十年的足球或篮球,突然他们改了三分之一的规则。这时候最聪明、最敏捷的人——未必是旧规则下最有经验的人——将获得巨大的优势。

Original English

Swyx: PM, I'm actually going to tell you that you're going too low with your numbers. So, one observation that I'll say is like, you know, the closest thing you have is, you know, department heads, where you have to budget for department heads, right? Well, and then the other thing, you know, researchers also have to do this, right? Because researchers have GPU research budget, right? So, it's it's like the the research budgeting process is now transferring over to the engineering budgeting process and product budgeting process. But then this guy, which we just interviewed, we haven't released it yet, from OpenAI, is probably saying we, you know, he's he's personally spending 1 billion tokens per day. The rest of his three-person team is spending like the the remaining 1.5 billion. 1 billion per tokens every day. If you take like some blend of input and output, it's going to be roughly, let's call it, 2.5 million. [laughter] That's a lot. A year, right? So, like, actually 50k is nothing. That's what you're going to factor in as the fully loaded cost of an engineer tech engineer in the very, very near future. 50k, fine, you know, office equipment, whatever. But like, 2.5 million is is starting to to really be chunky. It is really something you need to you need to really think about from first principles from the start. Like, before you even decide to do something. And I think that's a it's a very, very different world than the one that we've been living in for for decades with software, where there was always this idea of software is expensive, but it's bounded by the number of people who you deploy on it. And also, you have to get the people first before you even know what what exactly it is that you're going to necessarily build, because in a lot of cases, the the effort to go and and build all these things is going to be so high, and that's going to be like the determining factor of the risk that you're taking on. A lot of that's getting flipped on its head, which is which is neat. And what I think is also really neat about that for companies that are scaling up is that whenever the playing field gets more complicated, your ability to really distinguish yourself go goes up, because it's it's sort of like if we've been playing soccer or we've been playing basketball for decades and decades and decades, and then they change a third of the rules on you, whoever is the cleverest, whoever is the most agile, probably not necessarily the person who's most experienced in the old game, those are the people who are going to have those really big advantages.

AI 时代的构建 vs 购买 (Build vs Buy)

Swyx: 好吧,我想稍微切换一下话题。作为一个公司所有者,我由于预算原因正在面临 Build vs Buy(构建还是购买) 的决策。我付给外部供应商每年大约 20 到 25 万美元,现在我想,如果我给自己或者工程师 5 万美元去构建同样的东西,它会更个性化,而且花费更少。

我知道这对你们来说是个敏感话题,但你们显然有自己的见解。预算编制是整体性的,不仅仅是防止工程师像脱缰野马一样消耗 LLM。他们在努力产出,而历史上加速产出的方式是“购买”。也许现在不再需要购买了?

Original English

Swyx: Yeah. Okay. I'm going to transition topics very slightly because, you know, a budget on employees is one thing, but abstractly as a company owner, I'm dealing with this absolutely right freaking now on build versus buy, where I can spend on an external vendor, literally I have an external vendor I'm paying for my conference business about 200, 250k a year. And I'm now going, well, okay, if I if I give my engineer, I give myself 50k to go build this same thing, it's more personalized and I spend less. Right? So, like, I could justify the token spend budgeting the other way by also making a build versus buy decision. I know this is a sensitive topic for you guys, so I don't know, but like, you know, you guys clearly have some view about it cuz you you you you put this the build versus buy thing out there. And like, I'm going through this right now, so I figured I would just promote it. Also, I think like budgeting is is is holistic, right? Like, it's not just about, oh my god, my my engineers are out of control getting LLMs like horses. They're trying to do something productive, and sometimes, you know, the other way of accelerating things is to buy things historically. And maybe you don't have to anymore, right?

Stay SaaSy EM: 没错,这本质上涉及到了对软件行业的普遍焦虑。Build vs Buy 是行业内存在已久的问题,我想说它只是在 AI 时代变得更加尖锐,需要考虑的事项更多,但并不是新问题。

以前人们转向云端时,也有类似的争论。我认为旧有的思维框架依然适用:它有多复杂?我们管理它的难度有多大?你能多快把它建好?

每当有人跟我说他们想内部构建一个产品时,我说的第一件事通常是:“请描述一下它的功能集(Feature Set)。” 仅仅让他们列出功能,通常就能抑制很大一部分对构建的过度热情。

我会让他们花三天时间写一份 PRD(产品需求文档)。即便如此,他们回来时还是会说:“嗯,这挺复杂的,其实有很多情况我们没考虑到。”

AI 确实在加速一切。但现实是,许多产品非常成熟,其复杂程度是人们意识不到的。这就是为什么每个人都说:“别人的工作会被 AI 替代,但我的不会。” 因为我看别人的工作总觉得很简单,看别人的软件也觉得很简单。

成熟的软件比看起来复杂得多。此外,管理软件需要大量时间,保持可扩展性和高可用性也需要时间。作为领导者,我买很多软件的原因是我不想操心未来要给它加什么功能,我不想为那个软件做 PM,我不想托管它,我不想考虑它的在线率。

在内部构建可能很有趣,直到有一天你面临巨大的业务压力,需要立刻完成任务,结果有人在内部托管的版本上跑了一个数据库迁移,而那个版本只有 40% 的功能,新员工还在抱怨它不如以前在老东家用过的软件好用。

所以我认为,虽然 AI 改变了计算方式,但购买而非构建的老理由依然成立。公司需要仔细思考。一个好的 Heuristic(启发式/经验法则) 是:如果你可以用 Google Sheet 或电子表格替换这个软件,那你可能可以在内部构建。很多软件其实就是在电子表格上面套了一堆东西。如果一个电子表格搞不定,那你就在下一级挑战了。

我最近就在用一个内部软件,我当时想,“啊,我想重建它,因为我不喜欢它的某些部分。”

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yes, and essentially, I mean, this comes down to a lot of the angst on, you know, software in general and stuff like that. And uh you know, I think that build versus buy is a question that's been happening in the industry for a very long time. And and I think a lot of the framing is like, it's a new thing with AI. I would I would say it's more acute with AI. There's more things to think about with AI, but it's not a new question. It's existed since the beginning of software. And when people went to the cloud, that had an entire bunch of people saying like, I have all these cloud resources and I can do this thing and I'm paying for all that kind of stuff. So, I think one answer is that a lot of the old frameworks of thinking through this exist, and those frameworks are how complicated is it? How hard would we be able to manage it? How fast could you build it? Now, I would say like, a lot of the times when I talk with people about products that they think, hey, I could just build this internally, one of the first things I always say is like, just describe what the features are. Just like tell me what you think actually the features are of this product. And what you find is like, that usually curbs some amount of, you know, sort of like, over-enthusiasm on building things. You can describe the feature set, and it's like, not even I'll tell you this, it's not even describe it now and immediate, it's take 3 days and describe what you think is a PRD for this thing. But even with that, you come back with like a lot of like, well, it's complicated, and there's actually a lot of things it doesn't account for. So, I think one piece of the puzzle is I think AI is absolutely accelerating a huge amount of things, and it's going to it is the it is the future, it is the now, it is everything. It's still the case though that many products are just very sophisticated and have, you know, a a large amount of complexity that people don't realize. And that's part of why you see everyone saying, everyone else's job is going to get done by AI, but not mine. It's part of the like, I don't know exactly what you do, but I think it looks easy. I don't know exactly what the software does, but I know the software like I think what you do all the things that I think it looks easy. So, I think one piece of it is, you know, a lot of mature software is more complex than it looks. Another piece is administering software takes a lot of time. Having software that scales and has good uptime takes a lot of time. And one of the things that I've just always kind of thought about as a leader is a lot of the software that I buy, I want to have nothing to do with thinking about what features I want to add to it in the future. I don't want to PM that software. I don't want to host that software. I don't want to have to think about the uptime of that software. And it's all kind of, even if you could build it, it's off often all fun until the first time you're like, I have a huge crunch. I have incredibly critical, you know, business things that I need to get done right now today, but somebody ran a DB migration on my internally hosted version of some software that I only have 40% of the features on, and all the new hires are complaining that it's not like the thing I've used at the other place, and nobody can actually So, I I think it changes the calculus lot for what it's worth, but I think a lot of the old reasons why you would buy versus build still hold up. And so, I think companies that are going through this, I think just need to think about it carefully. I think a very good for what it's worth heuristic for some software is if you can replace it with a Google Sheet or a spreadsheet, you probably can build it internally. And then there's a lot of software that actually looks like a Google Sheet or a spreadsheet with a bunch of stuff on top of it. So, that's my kind of first thing I'm like, "Hey, if you can literally replace it with an MVP with a spreadsheet, maybe you could build it. If you can't, now you're in this next tier and there's kind of tiers that go up and up and up. But I will say that we have one piece of internal software that that I use that I'm just like, ah, I want to just rebuild this thing cuz I like there's parts of it that I don't like.

Swyx: 那就去做吧!

Original English

Swyx: Do it.

Stay SaaSy EM: 我试过了,但它真的很复杂。我花了不少 Token 去尝试,但你会发现,这里有一堆细节,那里又有一堆。

另外,自研软件不可避免地会与构建它的人紧密绑定,这会带来团队风险。而且,如果你把代码库看作一个大型协作文档,对于极其复杂的软件,并不是“厨师越多越好”。

我觉得 Twitter (X) 上的讨论太过于偏向“哇,我敲了一点代码,AI 就一键生成了这个看起来非常厉害的东西”。UI 在这种一键生成的演示里总是看起来不错。但它很少考虑到:如果我的业务发生重大重组,或者我们更换了主要供应商或系统,会发生什么?公司最终都会变成交织在一起的复杂网络。

但另一方面,我必须承认,准入门槛确实在下降。有些东西变了,这不是“照旧经营”。这就是目前存在的根本张力。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: But I tried I Well, I tried it's complicated. It's more complicated than you think. Like I I I spent a good number of tokens trying to do it, but you're like, "Yeah, there's there's stuff here, there's stuff there." So, um you know, I think as models get better, there will still be opportunities, but I think it's just people got to be judicious about it and think about it. And I think as you try some of it, people also learn really quickly like what the kind of more mature sort of um pathways of thinking about that. And some things you can write off immediately and some things you can't. I also think there is something interesting with homegrown software, which is that a homegrown software inevitably ends up very, very tied to the people that are building it. And there's a whole category of team and risk that goes along with that. And there's another whole category, too, which is that if you really think about a code base, it's sort of like just a big collaborative document that all sorts of people are potentially contributing to. And in something like that, especially for something that's really complex software where there's really important things that it has to do, having more cooks in the kitchen is not necessarily a good thing. And that is the kind of thing that I think organizations really need to reckon with, but it's not a problem unless you've managed large software teams over a long period of time and had to own certain processes or certain systems for a long period of time, it's not something that you necessarily think about up front. And so, I think a lot of the discourse on X gets very, very heavily indexed onto things like, "Wow, I just typed a bit of code code and it just one-shot this thing that looks very, very impressive." And the UI always looks decently good on on the one shots. And it indexes a lot less on things like, "All right, what happens if there's a major reorganization of how my business does something or we change some other major vendor or some other major system?" How is all of this going to change because for better or worse, these companies all companies end up as fairly interconnected webs over time and that adds complexity. But on the other hand, I will say the barriers to entry on this certainly are dropping. That something has changed. This is not just business as usual. And And that's that fundamental tension that's going on right now.

自定义 UI 与内部工具的未来

Swyx: 你们的见解非常好。我再补充一点:我认为 UI 层应该是最终用户可修改的。我厌倦了到处寻找设置菜单,只要不破坏数据库、不导致数据丢失,UI 应该随你怎么改。产品可以切分成不同层级,底层对管理员受限,表层则随你怎么玩。

PM,我昨天正好做了你说的那个练习:列出功能。因为我想替换掉我手头的一个 SaaS。我问我的团队,给我三个必须保留的功能。她说“一、二、三”。我看了一下,第一点很有道理;第二点,拜托,那只是个电子表格,用 Retool 或 Airtable 就能搞定;第三点是数据同步。所以我说,如果我向你证明这三点都能搞定,我们就换掉它,对吧?

也许某个软件有 100 个功能,但真正起作用且具有技术风险的只有 3 个。针对这些做个 POC 就行了。当然,模型改进的速度是不可预测的。我们就像在地震中试图寻找地平线。

关于自定义 UI,我想问,这是必须用 AI 才能实现的吗?

Original English

Swyx: I think really good takes from you guys. Um I'm happy to mostly leave it there. I will maybe comment two things or maybe one thing I should you want one other thing. I think the UI layer should be end user modifiable, right? Like I'm so tired of like having to hunt around and and like navigate settings and what have you and like, you know, that's not harming anyone else. That's not risking any database data loss or anything like that. Like I do think like you can sort of chop up a product into different layers and some layers should be restricted to admins and others vibe code whatever you want. I don't care, right? Like just take it away, right? The other thing is I I just wanted to show you like you know you know um uh PM that the the exercise that you said like list your features. I I just did that yesterday because I'm like trying to rip out the SAS that I have. Um and I'm like I was like, "Give me three things." She's like, "Blah, blah, blah." And I'm And I And I And I'm like, "Okay, the first one's a good one. Second one, come on. This is like a you know, it's just like a spreadsheet. It's like a retool. It's like an airtable, right?" Third is this is another sinking thing. So, So, I'm like, "Okay, like if I prove to you these three things, we do it, right?" Like So, you know, maybe one one way is like, "Okay, you know, maybe there's like 100 features, but there's three that really, really matter and have the most tech risk. So, let's let's try and do a proof of concept there. For sure. And I think that also the the model improvements and how fast the models are improving, that's of course the wild card. It It's like we're trying to figure out where the horizon is while we're actively in the middle of an earthquake right now. And [laughter] so, kind of knowing what is going to happen is is very, very hard and very challenging. I will say on the the custom UI point though, is that something that you need that you need AI for? I'm curious what what you're thinking there. Is that something that was strictly not possible?

Swyx: 显然是可能的,只是现在人们才意识到他们可以直接通过 Prompt(提示词)来定制。如果后端和数据保持不变,但你不喜欢这个 UI,你可以移动菜单、合并按钮。只要 API 端点和权限系统不变,当前的 UI 有时只是在妨碍用户,因为某处的某个设计师决定为“中位数用户”设计,而不是为你。为什么我不能完全个性化我的 UI 呢?

Original English

Swyx: No, it's obviously it's possible. It's just it's it's nice to have and now people are sit are attuned or woken up to the fact that they can just prompt things. And so, if you keep the back end the same, keep the data the same, if the UI you don't like it, you move the menu around like rearrange things or like have a button that does two things instead of one thing, does that really matter, right? As long as the the literally the all the endpoints stay exactly the same, your permissioning system stays exactly the same, then you're just like your UI's just getting in the way of your user because some designer just somewhere decided they had to design for the median and not not you. So, why can't uh me, especially for internal tools, why can't I just customize my UI, right? Like all UI should be like entirely personal.

Stay SaaSy EM: 没错,这有点像成熟产品里的自定义仪表盘,比如 Retool 正在做的事。这里还有很大的探索空间。AI 彻底颠覆了这种模式的经济成本。

我前几天也有类似的经历:我得登录一个 Google API 项目提取一个 Key,我得找半天那个 Key 到底在哪。这种简单的“寻找并抓取信息”的功能今年必须实现 Agent 兼容。如果你花 10 分钟找一个 Key,只是因为项目层级设计得太奇怪,这真的让人想自己去造个工具。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yeah. That's not too far away also from some what some mature products out there do where yeah, you got custom dashboard, but certainly yeah, but the way to say I think that I I mean, this is retool. Exactly. And so, that there's there's a lot more room to run. I think that the economics of it the economic model of that of course is completely flipped on its head with AI, which is one of the really compelling dimensions. Yeah. And to your point of like just there there is this whole new suite of things where we have AI and it's like incredibly frustrating that you can't just do a thing that seems like it should be so easy with with AI. I think I had a similar thing the other day where I was like I had to log into like a a Google API project and like pull a key out of it and I had to figure out like where in the project the key was and all this stuff. And it was it was another one of these things where I do think there'll be more UI flexi- flexibility. I also think the ability to do like any simple find and grab information from a dashboard, like I I think that just has to be aging compatible like this year for companies because that is one of those things where if you spend 10 minutes searching for a key that you can't find because the project layers are weird, it's just this it makes me want to go build something that uh that's it.

AI 管理者与决策分级

Stay SaaSy PM: 顺便说个稍微“激进”的观点:AI 可能对 DoorDashUber Eats 这种服务非常有好处。我不是指你提到的那个。我想说,AI 具有一种降低人们工作意愿的能力,因为你可以把太多东西外包给它。

就像社交媒体训练大脑去期待大量的多巴胺流一样,我们正在训练人们不愿在任务上投入大量的认知努力。除了那些在大学写论文的学生外,任何能降低任务总认知负荷的服务都会是赢家。

这引出了一个话题:如何让 Agent 成为真正的员工?在你的脑海里,这有没有一个层级结构?

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah. And for what it's worth, I have a slightly hotter take, too, that in some ways AI might be really, really good for DoorDash and Uber Eats and Instacart. You named DoorDash. You you know you know you know what you're referencing. Oh, no. I'm not I'm not talking about that. I would say I think that this could be really good for for any sort of service that makes that allows people to be kind of kind of lazy because I think that AI has a very strong ability to just sort of reduce people's willingness to do work. It's like you can offload so much to it that I think that it we are training people in a certain for a certain set of consumer behaviors the same way that social media has sort of trained brains to accept or to expect a a very, very heavy stream of dopamine, I think that we're we're training people to not want to exert large amounts of cognitive effort on tasks. And I think that some of the the winners of that, other than I guess, you know, people who are trying to write essays in in college or whatever, are any sorts of services that allow you to just reduce the total cognitive load of whatever task it was that you were trying to perform. I think this maybe maps closest to the topic about just like adding value and getting agents to be full employees. Is there a step? Is there a hierarchy that we that you sort of mapped on your head? Is this in terms of Can you say it's just in terms of trying to get AI to be as acting as much of an employee as possible and kind of thing? So, CP I'm curious your your thoughts on that first.

Stay SaaSy CP: 大规模来看,AI 在两个方向上非常有帮助。

一个是纯粹的自动化。就是做事情。比如写所有的单元测试,或者生成图像、视频。这具有巨大的经济价值,有能力替代某些任务。

但另一个完全不同的范畴是做决策(Making Decisions)。比如公司的整体销售策略或进入市场(GTM)策略该是什么?为了应对地缘政治动荡,我们该如何调整供应链?

推理模型与非推理模型给了我们不同的思考方式。但在主题上,自动化任务与决策判断之间有很大区别。目前我看到人们还是更关注自动化和任务端。

这里有一个很有意思的演变路径:是 AI 告诉人类该做什么,人类作为执行者?还是反过来,人类是组织的路由器和编排者,AI 去做所有的手动任务?最终会全部变成机器吗?这种并行发展的因素——自动化的程度与决策/策略制定的质量——将决定一个组织对某个 Agent 的信任程度。

历史上,公司不需要思考“什么程度算够好,什么程度算完美”。以前就是“在预算内招最好的人”。但现在,“什么时候可以由 AI 接手” 将由决策质量决定。

Original English

Stay SaaSy CP: Well, I think that there's really at a very large scale, there's two directions where AI is really helpful. One direction is just the pure automation. Like just doing things. Whether And those things [laughter] could be writing all of your unit tests or they could be generating generating some image or generating some video. There's there's a whole range of different kinds of things that can that can just get automated away. And that obviously has a lot of economic value and has a lot of capacity to replace like certain tasks that are being done. But then there's a whole different category around the making decisions. So, things like what should the overall sales strategy or go-to-market strategy be for a company or what how should we change our supply chain to account for some sort of like unrest uh geopolitical unrest or something like that. And And that's completely different. And I think that the the models have given us a certain way that we could think about that between the reasoning models and the the models that aren't doing reasoning. But just thematically, there's a really big difference in terms of the overall types of economic value that are being performed. And at least what I see right now just out about in my life from seeing what people are doing, I think that generally speaking, people are still quite focused around the automation and doing task side of things, which is in a way very, very similar to prior kinds of um technology changes in the past. Like once you get personal computing and you you can use spreadsheets and things like that. The question of sort of like judgment and decision-making, that's a really, really different one. And I think one of the ways that this can sort of manifest uh that's kind of interesting is this question of like what's going to be most efficient? Is it going to be to have an AI that tells the humans what to do and then the humans can just have use a smaller level of judgment or where the AI is the router and the orchestrator or should this be flipped where the humans are the router of the org, or is it rather that the AI goes and does all of the the manual tasks? Which is going to come first, and does it all eventually become machines? But, I think that that kind of continuum in parallel, like how good is the automation and how good is the the decision-making and the the strategy-setting? Those two factors are really going to determine kind of how far for any one type of role or any one type of, you know, agent that can perform with people, how much trust it ends up getting uh from an organization. And I think that as a result, what what happens is that organizations need to be really, really thoughtful about the level of quality of decision and the level of quality and perfection of automations that they need for every single task across the organization. Historically, I think a lot of companies have not needed to think about this. It's just like, I hire the best person or the best person that my budget accommodates for every single task that I can find. But, I mean, going back to the economic point, that question of what is good enough and what is perfect and where does that fit? That's really going to determine how much where the race can get handed off.

Swyx: 我正在画一个视觉化的等级图。当你问等级时,就像是阶梯式的。你提到了“AI 到人”和“人 到 AI”。我想到的是 Human in the loop(人在回路),你可以把 AI 当作一个廉价的初稿撰写员,人类的判断力只应用在关键点上,然后由 AI 启动后续工作。

Original English

Swyx: I've been plotting a little like what what I like to think visually and just plotting a little, like, you know, when I ask for a hierarchy, it's like it's it's kind of like like this where, you know, there's like levels, levels, and then you sort of like step through it. I I don't I don't know if we have one. I'm just kind of putting it out. You said AI to human to human to AI. I also think of like AI to human to AI where like you basically that's human in the loop. And you can use AI as a cheap drafter, uh and the human judgment's kind of just apply there. And then And then you can sort of kick off everything else, right? So, that's kind of how I would respond quickly to uh PM's point.

Stay SaaSy EM: 很多高管在想组织架构图时,总觉得可以从“树叶”开始自动化,即最基层的初级岗位。这是一个非常经典的做法。

但我们看到有些公司尝试用自动化替代那些直接面对客户的基层员工,结果失败了,因为他们误解了这些岗位实际创造的价值。

我想提一个不同的方向:管理层的自动化

作为领导者,我不觉得自己做了很多复杂的事情。很多时候我只是想跟上行业的步伐,我不希望每个决定都是独创且古怪的。如果你观察一个公司的瓶颈,很多时候高管就是瓶颈。他们 70% 的工作应该是行业标准化的。

为什么不用 AI 来自动化这些呢?我个人已经通过决策树自动化了大量的决策。那甚至不是 AI,只是逻辑:在招聘的特定环节,我只有五个固定的选择。

我经常辅导我的经理们。当他们说“我不能授权那个任务,它太复杂了”时,我会让他们写下实际做了哪些事。大多数时候,所谓的“太复杂”只是一个超过 5 个分支的选择语句。如果你回溯过去 5 年的工作,你会发现自己其实只是在 15 个选项中做选择。

与其盯着底层的初级员工,不如看看你的高管团队。也许明年会出现“分数高管”或者 AI 高管。CEO 可以说:“对于这个角色,我希望 80% 的决策是标准化的,剩下的 20% 我需要它是独特的,这样我可以更专注地运用第一性原理去思考。”

这种技术已经存在了。领导者应该思考:如何让自己不再成为决策的瓶颈,尤其是那些标准化的决策。每个人岗位的一部分都会被自动化,然后去承担新任务。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yeah, I will say I I think one of the interesting things I don't know if that transparent so explicitly, but a lot of people think about the org chart that you know, you you have a tree and they think about I can start to automate leaves of the tree, you know, sort of like the most junior bottom rung of sort of your organization. And that's a very like classic and a kind of executive thing where they're like, "Oh, I'm going to start to like, you know, improve my uh whatever." But, I think I heard the SAS The SAS side of like they're sort of replacing automation that maybe you have most junior people stuff like that on. And I think we've seen companies try to do that and successfully we've seen companies try to do that and fail. And, you know, sometimes those employees are literally talking to your customers and they're face of your of your company and people are I think in industry sometimes like misunderstanding the value that it actually has. But, I think you have sort of like intern, full-time employee, and kind of you standing what this is as you have said. I think actually I would say like, what about executive? And I always say like from a leadership position, I don't think I do that much complicated stuff. And a lot of stuff that I do is like very, very like I want to be part of the pack. I don't want to do I don't want every decision to be urine and exotic. And so, I actually think that if you're looking at, you know, where you can automate things in a comp in a company, a lot of people are looking at the bottom of the tree. I would start to think of the top of the tree. And a lot of leaders and a lot of executives are bottlenecks for their entire organization. A lot of what they're doing 70% of what they're doing should be things that are pre-standard in industry. And a lot of what sort of they end up trying to think about is like, how do I do the thing that everybody else does so we're all on the same page? Why not automate that with AI? I've personally automated a good amount of decision-making with just decision trees. That's not AI at all. It's just literally like, I only do five things when I do this specific thing in recruiting. It's not that complicated. You know, one of the things that I always coach my managers on is like, people say I can't delegate that. It's too It's too complex. And I work with them, I'm like, write down how many things you actually do here. Cuz most of the time people think too complex is actually like a case statement with more than five things in it. They just like it's you do maybe 21 things. And that's like complex, but it's not that complex. It's not undelegatable. And if you look and you backtest against everything you've done in the past 5 years, I personally have many things where I've done one of 15 different options. But, most people just can't get past, hey, I it's not for, you know, and so it's it's too complex. So, I think actually maybe one of the most interesting things is companies are looking at sort of trying to automate away sort of your more junior staff. But, like, look at your executives and maybe there's a world where in like, you know, the next year or two, there's fractional, you know, executives. Maybe there's AI executives. And you you're the CEO and you say, "Hey, actually for this role, I want 80% of things to be standard and the 20% that I want to be exotic, like I can think about that from first principles and it's like I can hone in on that much more easily than I can actually have quality control over 500 people in a location that's at the leaf of a tree of an organization." That's something that I think as we talk about that sort of evolution, I think the technology is already there. And I think leaders should be thinking about that of how we make myself less in the path of, you know, decisions and bottlenecks and all that stuff, especially where it's kind of bog standard.

Stay SaaSy PM: 这让我想起我们多年前写过的一篇文章,叫《你知道该做什么》(You Know What To Do)。

那篇文章的灵感源自于我发现,作为管理者和领导者面临的问题,99% 的时间里,你非常清楚自己该做什么。真正困难到需要高深理论或复杂计算的问题是极少数。大多数情况下,这更多关乎你是否有意志力去执行。

AI 在这种决策中的价值在于,它没有情绪。它往往知道解决问题的标准方法。我认为未来的分工是:人类的角色是识别“这一次真的不一样”。这一次不是互联网和 Reddit 评论的平均总结,而是一个独特的问题。

除此之外,你可以把大量的时间和认知能量拿回来。这将带来更好的领导力和管理决策,因为标准问题得到了标准化的处理。你可以把精力投入到那些真正深刻且重要的个人或职场难题上。这是一种巨大的赋能。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: So, anyway, all that to say, I think the tech will get better and everybody's job will be able to be sort of more automated and gets then they'll take on new tasks. But, I think many companies are sort of not thinking enough about how do I get my executive team to be more augmented, supplemented, or in some cases even sort of replaced by uh This also goes to a post that we had from many years ago. I think it was called, You Know What To Do. And the inspiration for that post that I wrote back then was basically just saying that if you really look at most of the questions that are facing you as a manager, as a leader at a company, from what I've seen, 99% of the time, you you know exactly what you need to do. The number of truly, truly difficult questions that require you to know some sort of advanced theory or advanced philosophy or run some huge amount of calculations that are very non-straightforward to do, that is the extreme minority of different questions that actually face you as a leader. In most cases, you know what to do and it's much more about having the willpower to go through with it. And I think that a lot of the power of AI for that sort of decision-making characteristic of leadership is about the fact that the AI, well, at least right now, depends on how many anthropic blog posts you read, but at least right now the AI does not have any emotions and it also really just tends to know the standard way of looking at a problem. And so, in a lot of ways of what I the way I can see this shaking out is that the role of the human is to identify, okay, this time it really is different. This time is not just that amalgamation of reading the entire internet and for better or worse reading every single Reddit comment on the internet and then using that to generate your version of intelligence. This is a unique problem for me. But, in many other cases, you can get all of that time back and you can get all that cognitive energy back. And I think that's actually going to lead in many cases to better leadership, to better management decisions because the standard questions will get answered in a more straightforward way. And those really hard and unique problems that are facing different organizations, AI will have solved all of the easier peripheral questions around that and people can really, really focus. And then if you think about your personal life, if you're thinking about questions like, who do I marry or where do I live? Like the really deep personal questions, they can be exhausting to deal with, but they're very important. And when it's in your personal life, you can really invest all of your energy into that. I think that there is a huge amount of power in that. And if that gets brought sort of into the workplace and into management teams, I think that that's very, very valuable and it's just a net positive overall.

维护工程文化的韧性

Swyx: 我喜欢这种坦率的方式。你们简直像是管理教练。我知道这不是你们的本职工作,但你们在 Stay SaaSy 的工作中确实扮演了这个角色。

Original English

Swyx: I love the sort of point-blank and blunt way of doing this. I feel like you guys almost like management coaches here, which I mean, you don't do as a day job, but you could be. In some ways you you you are doing through your stay sassy work. Yeah.

Stay SaaSy EM: 实际上这正是博客的起源。我记得当时我们在开会,会后我们说:“哇,虽然我们讨论出了结论,但我真希望有人能直接告诉我们该怎么做,因为我们一直在瞎猜。” 那些原则本应是前人经验中已知的。我们决定写下来,哪怕只是为了未来的自己。

令人惊讶的是,即使是现在最尖端的 AI 公司,他们遇到的问题与我们在 A 轮、B 轮融资阶段遇到的问题几乎一模一样。我本以为会听到完全不同的东西,但实际上,他们的痛苦和挑战是跨越技术周期的。

其中最核心的一点就是:。AI 也许可以自动化 outbound 招聘这类基于原则的任务,但管理一个人类团队、建立信任、处理情绪,AI 离那还远得很。

如果你的经理是个 AI,人们的行为会发生改变。这就像“海森堡问题”:一旦你尝试观察或实施它,赛道就变了。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Well, that was the genesis of the blog actually was I actually remember where it was. We were having some meetings, a touch-base meeting with and afterwards we were saying, "Wow, like this is death like I'm glad we talked about this and we need to go do something with this. But, also, I really wish that there had been someone who could just tell us what to do in this situation because we're sort of guessing and I think just from debating we've gotten to a good conclusion, but this was knowable beforehand by someone with more experience. And then we were starting to look back at some of our past experiences and say, you know, we should really just start to write more of this stuff down if anything just for for our future selves because to that point, a lot of this stuff is knowable or at least the principles are knowable and then you have to take them and apply them to whatever situation you're in when it comes to management and comes to leadership. Yeah, I think one of the most interesting things that I've seen in the modern era that has been surprising has been all of the things that we learned in series A, series B, you know, all that kind of stuff. Like, it's super applicable to modern day AI companies. Like, I I kind of as I started to just talk to more leaders of you know, sort of like the latest and greatest AI companies, I thought I was going to hear crazy different things and just sort of like, "Hey, it's wildly different than anything you've ever seen and you can't even comprehend it cuz you're not at one of these state-of-the-art absolute founded 18 months ago and is, you know, a trillion dollar company." But, I talked to the people and they're like, "Hey, I'm at like a series B hot AI startup and they have the exact same problems we had, you know, when we were at series when I was at a series B company and maybe the exact same problems at series C." And so, it's like uh it is um it's incredibly interesting how many of these problems are durable through technology shifts. And I think when we think about like what AI can automate and what can't, one of the most common things that is extremely consistent amongst all these companies is you know, humans. It's people. And I think one of the places where good leaders are really good at is just thinking about people, thinking about how to manage individuals and humans. And And I don't think even though I think like, hey, how do we like do outbound recruiting? Like, that's a very like automatable task with principles. But, how do I manage a team of humans and they might have off days and how do I build their trust? I don't think that AI is particularly close to that. And I think that that is like probably one of the things that is most consistent with any company that we see. Problems are in that realm. It's also something I think I have probably the furthest from. It's also one of these weird things where even if you started to have something like an AI as a manager and like your manager is an AI, people will start behaving differently. And so it's like it's probably these Heisen-problems where like the minute you even try to do it, you sort of you lose the race and stuff like that.

Swyx: 在我们结束前,我必须提一下:本周 Amazon 宕机了约 6 小时,原因竟然归咎于 Jira。如果连 Amazon 都会因为代码流程出问题,那我们可能就有麻烦了。我想听听你们对可靠性关键性的看法。

Original English

Swyx: Okay, so one thing I wanted to touch on before uh, we close. I I don't think we're going to cover everything, but I just I needed to do this because you know, you guys actually work at like a real company and it's like very serious and and all that. So and I I I I I I I I I do think this week is particularly of focus because Amazon went down for like what? 6 hours because of vipecoding, right? And they were like, oh this is they threw their own um, software to under the bus because it it was actually apparently a tri- attributed to Jira. And uh, I'm like, well, if if that hits Amazon, like we might be in trouble. Because Amazon's supposed to be the best at this. I don't know. It's just like reliability and criticality. I just wanted to prompt you and set you off.

Stay SaaSy EM: 这是一个极其有趣的话题。最终,公司必须信任工程师。没有哪个系统是不依赖于“工程师作为生产环境最后一道防线”的信任而存在的。

虽然现在有了 AI 辅助的 CI/CD,但任何优秀的系统仍需要某种程度的人为判断。现在的挑战是,随着代码产出量的爆炸式增长,一些公司被诱导去思考:“我不需要看这个 PR,那是那个人负责的事。”

这种挑战在软件行业并不新鲜。当你扩展业务时,一旦发生事故,人们总喜欢找替罪羊:“哦,是那个新来的,他不了解情况。” 但实际上,责任在你。

成功的软件文化中,你应该明确:即便团队里有一个低绩效者或新人,也不能让他们轻易搞垮生产环境。整个团队负责确保安全。 优秀的文化是:即使我把一个恶意行为者放进你的团队,他们也无法搞垮生产环境,因为他们的代码必须经过懂行的人的审查。

但现在由于 AI 的存在,人们追求极致的交付速度。工程师变成了“孤胆英雄”,追求尽可能多地提交代码,而没人愿意花时间去做代码审查员。

公司文化正在实时经受考验。代码量越多,维护稳定的难度就越大。 如果你正在听这个播客,请务必审查你同事的 PR。不要让任何人有搞垮生产环境的机会,这在“一人军队”式的文化中是不可持续的。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Yeah, I think it's an extremely interesting space and I think ultimately companies trust engineers. Like there's no system that doesn't have some trust that engineers are the checks and balances for what goes out to prod. And that's just the reality. There can be AI you know, forward bless, there can be AI CI and all of this stuff. But any good system still has some level of judgment in it. And I think one of the things that has become very challenging is that as the level and the volume of code going out has exploded, it's coaxed some companies into thinking like, I don't need to look at this PR. You know, that's that person's thing. That's their kind of code going out the door. One of the challenges with that and this is again, this is not a new challenge in software actually. One of the challenges as you scale software businesses you get to a place where you have an incident and you go, what happened? You know, ah, it's the it's the new guy. You know, he didn't know what he was doing. Totally throwing under the bus. Like it's but no, actually it was you. [laughter] Well, you know what? It happened, but you know, you then go like, all right, well, we have some new guy budget for for issues, but and then you have five teams and now you have people like, oh, it's the new guy on that team. It's the new guy on this team. So there's always this possibility in like a scaled software system where somebody doesn't know what they're doing could break something. And as you scale a software company, you need to be clear with your teams. Like there's no world in which somebody that doesn't know what they're doing can sneak through the cracks and break prod. You as a team are responsible for making sure that things stay safe whether you have a low performer or a new person or whatever. And companies that have been successful and stable, they had that culture. They had that culture of I could literally put a malicious actor in your team and they couldn't take down prod cuz they have to get a poor review from somebody that knows what they're talking about. And you know, you have to be in a place where like that is a check and balance in the system. You would need multiple people who don't know what they're doing to actually coordinate taking down prod in good software cultures. But what I think is happening is people are going and saying, we have to ship so fast. We have to ship so much AI that I don't even know what this PR really is and even if I did, I can't do a risk analysis on it. And I don't know how to my good staff engineer to review that PR. So that whole invariant of the team is here to And by the way, new people hate taking down prod. You shouldn't set them up to do that. You should have the team be a cocoon of safety of like, we got you. We will make sure that you get it out the door. And what we're seeing with AI is many companies and cultures are turning into armies of one. This idea of like, I can do it all. I want to ship as much code as possible. And by the way, I I don't know that I want to be here to be that person's, you know, code reader for them. And so what I think is happening is companies are trying to adapt in real time of how I not unlock people that say they can and and show that sometimes they can actually get it out the door. But then how I make it in a world where somebody who can't is not just left to take down prod because nobody will take the time to actually review their code. I think it's a solvable problem, but I think it is testing the cultures of companies uh, in real time. They're going to have to adapt to it. I think AI can only go so far and I think coming back to sort of like human and and human judgment, it you know, keeping software sites up with many nines of uh, availability requires judgment constantly. And that is something that I think the entire industry is going to have to adapt to. So anyway, if you're out there listening to this, review your co-workers PRs and like you know, don't let anybody able to take down prod. Like if that is the the culture on your team, you cannot do that. It's not sustainable. It's only going to get worse with more code going out the door. Um, but but I think that's what's happening is people are becoming fatigued and kind of breaking that invariant of like the team owns it and the team is stable.

Stay SaaSy PM: 没错。现在的说法是,我以前是个 10x 工程师,现在有了 AI,我是个同时运行 10 个 Agent 的 100x 工程师。

但人们很少谈论的一点是:这非常令人疲惫。管理这一群你甚至给它们起了名字的 Agent 是极其耗能的。当你在一天结束时精疲力竭,而另一个团队突然给你发来一个涉及多个系统的极其复杂的 PR,你需要把所有上下文载入大脑才能审查。

这非常危险。这种疲劳会让你在审查任务关键型代码时产生疏漏。我甚至预感到未来会有一种类似于“飞行员执照”的制度:在飞飞机(或者审查 5000 行关键代码)前几小时内不能喝酒,必须保证充足睡眠,并且限制在驾驶舱的时间。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: Yeah, I think for one thing very telling that this was Amazon. So a very very large software company, one of the biggest software companies in the world that also does a lot of things that really are business critical and supports Yeah, you know, of course they have AWS which is the business critical system that other business critical systems are set up on. So I think it's it's very telling there because that's really showing the level of intensity that of pushing to use these new coding tools to ship as fast as you possibly can that's that's going on out there because if you would expect anywhere to be more conservative and more risk averse around this stuff, you would expect it to be a company a bit more like Amazon. I think that's the other element of this that's going to be really interesting when it comes to code review and particular code review of really nuanced functionality that's really critical or is very deep into the bones of whatever product it is that your company builds is that this new sort of mode of working that you of course you read about on X all the time or increasingly on LinkedIn, but LinkedIn is what? Like 60-90 days behind X. Someone wrote about that uh, study one time. Oh, that's a real thing. I I I I don't I don't know. I'm making it up. The joke is one week. One week? Oh man, I would not give LinkedIn that much credit. It's at least 4 weeks. So something goes viral on X, people go like, oh LinkedIn's going to be crazy when they find out about this next month. Like Yeah. [laughter] So but the thing that people talk about is, all right, so I'm an engineer. I'm a cracked 10x engineer and now I'm a now I'm a 100x engineer with AI. I'm running 10 simultaneous agents all at the same time. One of the things that people quietly talk about is that that's that's very fatiguing. And I know some people who are operating that way. I've I've met these people. And it it is fatiguing. And what is fatigue really going to hit you on? Fatigue is really going to hit you when now it's the end of the day. You have been tending to this uh, herd of agents that you that you've named and are are chatting with constantly. And now someone from another team hits you with a pull request that's very very complicated that touches many different systems where you need to basically page all of this context into your brain in order to review it. That starts to become very risky. Like to somebody who is, you know, accountable at least partially accountable to a system being sustained, that's very risky to know that somebody who's that exhausted is going to be reviewing really mission critical code. That is something that I think we're going to see over time. I I could even see crazy worlds where it's just become like a pilot's license. Like I can't have a beer for X number of hours before I fly a plane. You know, I need to you know, line on a sleep or I can only be in a cockpit for for so long before I find out. I wonder if you start to see something like that going on. If you're going to be the reviewer of say that 5,000 line merge request, pull request that's coming through that's something really critical. I think it's either going to go like PRs have totally automated review and literally there's no human loop and that the tools are good enough or the entire industry is going to get uh, we need to have poor review be like a serious thing that we're not taking for granted in the wage of AI that we'll see.

Stay SaaSy EM: 我们刚刚发布了一篇博文,讨论“如何终结代码审查”。这听起来和你说的“做更多审查”相反。但在 adoption curve(采用曲线)的极前端,人们正在讨论 Software Factory(软件工厂)Dark Factory(黑灯工厂)——不仅没有人类编写的代码,也没有人类审查。这非常令人不安,但确实有人在这么做。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: A couple of things which we are now running out of time to talk about but we did just publish a blog post on the internet space about how to kill the code review and you're you're saying do more reviews. I do think like there's different parts of the adoption curve. Extreme frontier edge right now is thinking about what people are calling the software factory or the dark factory where you not only have no human written code, you also have no human reviews. And it's it's very alarming but you know, there's people setting up systems to do this. I don't have the time to to dig into it but just people should know.

展望 2026:一个充满动力的年份

Swyx: 你们的观点非常理智。将 EM 和 PM 的建议应用到 AI 领域是非常受欢迎的。最后还有什么想说的吗?

Original English

Swyx: Your your comment also reminded me of Netflix's chaos engineering and chaos monkey which like yeah, if you have a malicious actor, you randomly turn off services, is your organization resilient and like yeah, people are accumulating a lot of key man risk. When it comes to sort of the the way that they approach AI engineering today and uh I think you guys are just like very sensible which is applying EM and PM advice AI and I think that's like really well welcome. Any last words before we we we we end we we do have to go soon. I'm just kind of leaving it open in terms of topics.

Stay SaaSy PM: 我得引用 Mr. Beast 的那句台词:请大家订阅我们的博客。

作为管理者,最重要的一点是:真正去关心你的团队,关心他们的福祉。我们从读者反馈中看到,最令人乐观的事情就是大家实际上非常关心彼此。

另外,即便有了 AI,构建初创公司依然极其困难。你遇到的挑战、那种压力,其实前人都遇到过。你并不孤单,不要气馁。

Original English

Stay SaaSy PM: I think one thing that I would just leave well, I guess I have to I have to say the the Mr. Beast YouTuber line right like come and like and subscribe to our blog. And I really want to shout out your podcast as well. I don't know if you guys are continuing episode one winning from third place. I was like holy what a title, what a focus. You guys have taste like yeah, go go check it out but primarily the Twitter is like where where you guys are blowing up, right? Yeah, I think that like the ultimately we are I think at its core a management blog or a management voice and I think that the number one thing maybe two things that I would say just based on the the reader feedback and different audience folks who've who've reached out to us in the past are are two things. One is if you are a manager it's just really really important I think to really care, really be compassionate and really care about the well-being of your team and the well-being of your of your team in its entirety. And also to anyone who's on a team, I would just say that what we consistently see from people who reach out to us directly is just how much many people care about their teammates. I think that that's been one of the coolest really optimistic things that I have gathered from the time that we've been running the site Sassy is just the number of people who really really care. That is just been really cool to see. The other thing that I would just say is that building startups even with AI, even if you have cloud code, building startups are really really hard and what we do see is the problems and the challenges that different startups run into, different founders, executives you every engineers, anyone on a team that they run into those problems really do rhyme and so if you're feeling completely stressed out by some business problem that's going on, just just know that you're not alone. If there was a single kind of sentiment that I could get out there, it's really that. It's that you don't worry too much, someone else is dealing with this probably in exactly the same way in some other location right at this moment and just don't be discouraged.

Stay SaaSy EM: 我认为 2026 年将是我职业生涯中软件行业最充满动力的一年。这个行业已经准备好大洗牌了。很多人在 2025 年说“我感觉我太迟了”,我想说没人迟到。这一年将改变我们对软件工程和经营业务的所有既有认知。

拥抱 AI 吧,但千万不要偏离处理人类问题的轨道,因为那将是今年人们拉开差距的地方。

Original English

Stay SaaSy EM: Very much like that's also my goal is like this is a shared experience we're all going through it together and like that's why I write, that's why you write. I think it's a it's a common thing. Yeah, I would just say I think 2026 is going to be the most dynamic year in software like in my entire career. I think the industry is is really ready for a shakeup and I think I I heard a lot of people in 2025 say I feel like I'm late to this stuff and I think my only thought is like I absolutely think nobody's late to anything. I think this year is going to change every single thing it we thought about software engineering and running businesses and and I think the people that are ready for this year in particular are going to go into that year and just say like this is where I made everything happen. So I think from a manager perspective it's be ready, be ready to adapt, know yourself, know your limitations, ask for help, do the right thing, you know, all that kind of stuff and from you know, sort of builder perspective I think for a lot of people the the hardest problems are going to be human. It's going to be figuring out how to work with other people how do I make sure that like I'm not aiming at the wrong thing and then getting you know, just sort of like building in a bubble and stuff like that and so I think it's going to be the craziest year for for AI if that's if we're at the singularity, I guess it'll be true for every year from here on out but [laughter] but I do think it's something where like it's going to put a lot of pressure points a lot of human different interactions and I think everybody there's a lot of like the Sassy Pants said there's a lot of power on that, there's a lot of things you can look up about how to navigate that but I think that is going to be something where everyone needs to take care of each other, think about how they can execute in a world where the AI is not taking over everything yet. There's a lot of people out there that you need to work with to get build great businesses and I think people need to embrace AI fully if they haven't already which certainly anybody on this podcast you know, this is going to be guilty of that but I think people also need to really not veer too far from dealing with human problems because those are I think where people are going to also differentiate this year.

Swyx: 很高兴能和你们聊天。我是你们的粉丝。我们不应该每隔四年才聊一次,应该多聊聊。

Original English

Swyx: Anyway, it's a pleasure to talk to you guys. I'm a fan. It's always a pleasure. We should do this more often than once every four years. [laughter] But like keep doing what you're doing and everyone go subscribe. Yeah, thanks so much for having us all, thanks. Yeah. Yeah, thank you.

📌 文中提及的人物和组织

人物: Swyx

公司/组织: OpenAI, Amazon, Netflix, Substack

产品/模型: GPT-4o, Hacker News

媒体/书籍: Stay SaaSy

关键字: engineering-management ai-budgeting token-economy build-vs-buy engineering-culture