As engineering, product, design, DS, etc. melt into a new kind of role, I was reflecting on what roles might look like in the future. For example, when I look at the Claude Code team I see what I think is five archetypes:

1. Prototyper: comes up with brand new ideas; churns out many ideas, most of which don't ship

2. Builder: quickly turns a prototype/idea into production-grade product/infra

3. Sweeper: cleans up the UI, simplifies the code and system, unships, optimizes performance

4. Grower: takes a product that has been built and iterates on it to improve Product-Market Fit

5. Maintainer: owns a mature system to make it secure, reliable, fast, and efficient as it scales

Many people span across 2 roles, and sometimes 3 roles. I also notice that these roles are not really tied to job function -- eg. across Anthropic, some designers match category 1, some 2, some 3; same for engineers, PM, DS.

A healthy team needs a mix of these, depending on the product:

- A product that is new and pre-PMF needs people that are strong at 1+2+3

- A product that is growing and has found PMF needs 2+3+4 and some 5

- A product that has strong PMF needs 3+4+5 and some 2

Maybe product roles of the future will look more like this, and less like the domain-specific roles of today?

How Anthropic PMs use agents internally to get closer to the product from Jess, product lead for Claude Managed Agents:

"Access to our codebase has been the biggest unlock for me.

It helps me manage state more easily. Rather than poking a bunch of engineers on what they're doing, I can just track the PRs directly and see which ones are merged, which ones are deployed.

I deeply understand and interact with my product so much more than I've ever been able to in the past."

Codex team is in a warroom on a Sunday combing through logs and checking whether there is anything that could lead to increased usage drains for some users. Taking it very seriously and won't rest until we get to the bottom of it.

As we are still investigating, I have reset everyone's Codex usage limits. This is a hard reset given some users had stacked up to three banked resets already that they can apply on their own schedule.

Funnily enough, this week at OpenAI is called the RESET week, which is meant for folks to relax a bit. However it will be a different kind of RESET week. Enjoy.

If you happened to have used your previous reset in the few hours before and didn't go through your usage, do not worry, you will get more manual resets after we conclude the investigation.

You don't need a LinkedIn, you need a page on your website describing and linking to what you shipped

You need a Link, not a LinkedIn 😂

For every hour you spend on building the product, spend two hours on explaining it, demonstrating it, selling it, teaching it…

This is my favorite part about building: telling the world about it and then refining it based on contact with reality

this has to be because coding agents change the engineering math on how it is to work with or port a legacy codebase, right?

anyone at Riot able to confirm?

It should be 100% obvious that there will soon be mythos level models on cyber security that are open and available to anyone. As a byproduct of this, alternative tech stacks will emerge that also drive more economic value and control away from the US's tech stack.

This is what should be considered when thinking through the gate keeping you want to have in AI. If advanced models will become open and available regardless, then by not allowing the release of models you're neither more secure nor better off strategically.

So much of the regulatory approach to AI has to assume China can't catch up, when all current evidence suggests they can and are. And further, hard to imagine a higher priority than winning in AI for China; so you're basically betting against their long term ingenuity, talent and motivation. Seems like a bad bet.

So your options are either to create gates around your best models, which means you're asymmetrically disadvantaging yourself, or you work to ensure you're always at the frontier and driving the future architectures of AI.

BALABAN: On the left hand side is all of the energy production, and then on my right hand side is tokens being consumed. You've got photons coming in per second or molecules of natural gas. That through a power plant gets converted into joules per second. The data center needs to cool itself, that's the PUE. You put the servers in, and that's producing FLOPS per second. That gets turned into tokens per second.

BALABAN: The server portion is by far and away the largest: servers can be anywhere from 35 to $45 billion a gigawatt. Power plant is 2 to $3 billion a gigawatt. Data center is between 10 and $15 billion a gigawatt.

BALABAN: Most neo clouds don't have this kind of technology. Most neo clouds have not made the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars of software investment that you need to make to build a real cloud system that can partition a high performance computing environment.

BALABAN: We have GPUs that we've commissioned that are fully depreciated from an accounting perspective. The usable life is longer than the accounting depreciation schedule. The people who said you're gonna throw these GPUs out in five years are completely wrong.

BALABAN: I want Lambda to be this vertically integrated, high velocity powerhouse. There's two companies in the world that can do high velocity deployments: SpaceX AI and Lambda.

BALABAN: Neural software means the LLM becomes the software, not generates the software. There is no code that's running. It's just modifications of the feature activation space and the context in the mind of the neural network.

BALABAN: Before people believed in the AI thesis, I would talk about one person, one GPU. In the future, everybody in the United States will need the computational power of one GPU or more.

BALABAN: Agentic workflows for things that are not software engineering tend to be overhyped. The reason is you need very concrete feedback mechanisms, which are done brilliantly through automated testing. It's not done brilliantly for 'hey Claude, make me a billion dollars.'