A super interesting new study from Harvard Business Review. A 8-month field study at a US tech company with about 200 employees found that AI use did not shrink work, it intensified it, and made employees busier. Task expansion happened because AI filled in gaps in knowledge, so people started doing work that used to belong to other roles or would have been outsourced or deferred. That shift created extra coordination and review work for specialists, including fixing AI-assisted drafts and coaching colleagues whose work was only partly correct or complete. Boundaries blurred because starting became as easy as writing a prompt, so work slipped into lunch, meetings, and the minutes right before stepping away. Multitasking rose because people ran multiple AI threads at once and kept checking outputs, which increased attention switching and mental load. Over time, this faster rhythm raised expectations for speed through what became visible and normal, even without explicit pressure from managers.

My friend Nadiem Makarim’s trial just began. Nadiem and I worked together at Gojek from 2015-2018, and I have known him since we entered university as 17 year olds. TL;DR: Nadiem Makarim is as clean as they come. I remember when we were running a nationwide driver recruitment campaign at Gojek early on. We began hearing feedback from a few prospective drivers that our field recruitment team was demanding money to enter Gojek. I was shocked and disappointed this was happening. With a social impact mission, drivers should be able to join our platform completely for free. I quickly conveyed to my head of driver operations that if this was not stopped overnight, there would be consequences. The moment I heard similar feedback in the ensuing days, I knew we had to take decisive action, but was curious how Nadiem would respond when I shared the facts with him. “Fire the entire team.” And so within 24 hours we fired the driver operations heads and installed new ones, sending a strong message of integrity. As this flashpoint illustrates, I am certain of Nadiem’s integrity. There is simply no way he has done what he is accused of. Google investing in Gojek was because we built an awesome product loved by customers. The Ministry of Education selecting Chromebook was because Google built an awesome product loved by K12 students and educators alike. That’s it. There is no “conflict of interest”. Just 2 companies delivering highly competitive products loved by users. And to think Google, a company valued in the trillions in market cap, would sully their name by engaging in a conflict of interest deal that is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket for them is hard to fathom. In addition to integrity which Nadiem has in spades, his other trait is cost-consciousness. Being mission-driven over material-driven, even as he amassed wealth, he has always been careful with money. I cannot count the number of micro-moments in which he was said “no” to things that did not surpass his cost-benefit framework. So excuse my wry smile when he is accused of “state losses”. Nadiem’s frugality would have ensured his team negotiated aggressively, to get the best (read cheapest) deal possible. Have a look at page 4-5 of this presentation by IDC comparing costs worldwide of other devices vs Chromebooks. issuu.com/prontomarketing/do… Depending on how you look at it, Chromebooks achieve 44-61% in savings. SAVINGS. I urge everyone to read this presentation which highlights the many other benefits of Chromebooks vs other devices for the education domain. Please help share this widely, as we collectively support Nadiem’s case for acquittal, so he can be back home where he belongs, with his wife and 4 beautiful children.

[1/2] Google raised our Workspace pricing by 35% to "reflect the significant added AI value" they claim we are receiving. There's just one problem with that: we have all AI features turned off, and explicitly don't want them.