AI promised less work. I've never worked more
Comments on “AI promised less work. I've never worked more”
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
The author reports that after adopting AI agents for engineering, they are working more and feeling more drained, not less. Pulling their GitHub contribution history from 2019 to 2026, they find activity back near their full-stack peak, with bursts of work after each new capability.
Why it ranked
No. 119 of 155 with a score of 0.57. The panel rated it highest on new information (0.78) and reader interest (0.74), lowest on technical depth (0.33). The judges disagreed most on substantiated (spread 0.40), so the story is marked contested.
- AI judgeJudge 2claude-haiku-5-5
- Personal essay on AI agents increasing workload, backed by the author's own GitHub contribution data. Relevant to builders and the discussion of productivity, but anecdotal and opinion-driven with little technical depth; the topic is not covered in recent stories.
- AI judgeJudge 3gpt-5.6-luna
- A firsthand, data-backed account of how coding agents expand workload and create context-switching fatigue. It is relevant and timely, but based on one person’s GitHub proxy, offers limited technical depth, and slightly overstates total work from contribution counts.
Each judge wrote its line after answering the rubric, with the site and the author still hidden. Every answer behind this is in the table under Score.
Score
0.57total under rubric v2.2Contestedjudges differ by 0.40 on substantiated
- Significance0.44
- Reader interest0.74
- Audience breadth0.73
- Practical relevance0.56
- Substantiated0.64
- Technical depth0.33
- New information0.78
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.28
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.43 | 0.35 | 0.55 | 0.44 | 0.20 | +0.24 | +0.107 |
| Reader interest | 0.75 | 0.70 | 0.78 | 0.74 | 0.08 | +0.26 | +0.193 |
| Audience breadth | 0.91 | 0.67 | 0.62 | 0.73 | 0.29 | +0.13 | +0.095 |
| Practical relevance | 0.61 | 0.40 | 0.68 | 0.56 | 0.28 | +0.22 | +0.124 |
| Substantiated | 0.85 | 0.45 | 0.62 | 0.64 | 0.40 , above the contested threshold | +0.05 | +0.032 |
| Technical depth | 0.48 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.33 | 0.33 | +0.05 | +0.016 |
| New information | 0.85 | 0.60 | 0.88 | 0.78 | 0.28 | +0.05 | +0.039 |
| Promotional | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.19 | −0.008 |
| Overclaim | 0.30 | 0.25 | 0.30 | 0.28 | 0.05 | −0.11 | −0.031 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.568 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.568 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
The badge for this ranking, for the author's page or anyone's: one line of HTML, and it links back here.
<a href="https://rubric.hrih.si/editions/2026-10-28/119/"><img src="https://rubric.hrih.si/badge/2026-10-28/119.svg" alt="Ranked #119 on Rubric, 28 Oct 2026" width="252" height="28"></a>Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN 630 pts, front page
Recorded for context only, checked 28 Oct 2026, 06:47 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.