[apalmer]

The article didn't do a good job explaining the 120% attention angle, I kept reading waiting for that and it never really came. I definitely had the impression it was heavily using AI in the writing which I gave up on being against, but it just didn't explain the thesis well.

I guess the idea is AI gives you back time so you could now do the 20% but you still really can't because you have to still think about it even if the code is generated? Not even sure after reading all that text what the idea is .

[alasr]

Regarding the the current HN post's title, I like the TFA original title ("The New 20% Time, Minus the Time") better, along its sub-title; IMHO, the current HN post's title ("Google's 20% 'project' has become AI's 120% 'attention'") is more like reflection of the HN submitter's interpretation of the content of the blog post (that I agree with partially and to a small/negligible extent ONLY).

---

IMO, keeping "Google 20% Time" (mentioned in the TFA) and "R&D is two jobs, ..." (his second-last blog post, at time of writing this comment) in mind while reading this blog post, helps in reading and understanding the content of this blog post; whether we agree (or not) with the author's point-of-view is another matter.

---

Btw, I also noticed AI usage on this blog post; however, I over-looked that part of the post after looking at author's past work (and I'm happy I did that and continued reading the post).