In the competitive rush to lead in artificial intelligence, technology firms, particularly startups, are embracing marathon work weeks of up to 72 hours, reviving the “996” culture—working from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., six days a week—that first gained prominence in China. This trend is fueled by immense venture capital investments and the urgent race to commercialize AI before competitors, but it sparks debates over health risks, productivity, and the ethics of extreme work demands.
One vivid example is Rilla, a New York-based AI company, which explicitly warns job applicants about working approximately 70 hours per week, framing it as a requirement for those with “insane speed” and “infinite curiosity.” Similarly, Browser-Use, a Silicon Valley startup, operates on a similar ethos, with CEO Magnus Müller describing work as an addictive passion comparable to gaming, where long hours are seen as essential for breakthrough innovations in AI capabilities. These firms are not alone; others like Cognition and Sonatic also promote intense performance cultures, often tying compensation heavily to equity in high-stakes gambles for future wealth.
The 996 culture has its roots in China’s tech sector over a decade ago, championed by billionaires like Alibaba’s Jack Ma, who called it a “blessing,” and JD.com’s Richard Liu, who famously declared “slackers are not my brothers.” However, this led to a significant backlash, including the “996.ICU” GitHub campaign highlighting health risks, and eventual legal crackdowns in China that deemed such practices illegal without proper compensation. Despite this, the ethos has found new advocates in the West, especially among young AI entrepreneurs racing to capture market share.
The driving force behind this resurgence is the AI gold rush, where companies fear missing a narrow window of opportunity to dominate emerging technologies. Adrian Kinnersley, a recruitment expert, notes that AI startups with venture funding feel compelled to work longer hours to outpace rivals, a sentiment echoed by Berkeley SkyDeck’s Caroline Winnett, who points to a two-to-three-year timeframe for establishing market leadership. This pressure creates an environment where founders and employees alike are pushed to their limits.
However, working such extended hours carries severe health consequences. A 2021 study by the World Health Organization and International Labour Organization linked long work hours—over 55 per week—to increased risks of stroke and heart disease, estimating 745,000 related deaths globally in 2016. Productivity research also undermines the rationale for extreme schedules; studies show diminishing returns beyond 40-50 hours per week, with output per hour dropping sharply as fatigue sets in, suggesting that smarter work, not longer hours, may be key to success.
Critics argue that 996 culture alienates older workers, those with families, and can lead to burnout, as noted by venture capitalist Deedy Das, who warns that equating hours with productivity is a fallacy. In contrast, proponents like Müller and Rilla’s Will Gao view it as a choice for passionate individuals seeking monumental achievements. The legal landscape varies; in the UK, for instance, workers can opt out of the 48-hour weekly limit, allowing 996 practices if consented to, but health and productivity concerns persist.
Looking ahead, this trend highlights a broader tension in the tech industry between innovation-driven hustle and sustainable work practices. While some, like BrewDog co-founder James Watt, advocate for “work-life integration” over balance, movements like “quiet quitting” in the U.S. and “lying flat” in China suggest a growing resistance to overwork. As AI continues to evolve, the debate over 996 culture will likely intensify, forcing companies to weigh the pursuit of breakthroughs against the well-being of their workforce and the long-term viability of their business models.
