After publishing Vanishing Depth of Work, I had several conversations with people across the industry who resonated with the ideas but also challenged and expanded on them in interesting ways. These discussions led me to reflect even deeper on the relationship between deep work, fast shipping, and the dopamine-driven cycles that shape modern work culture. This post is a follow-up to explore those insights further.

The dopamine effect of deep work vs. shipping fast

We know that deep work—the kind of work where you get lost in solving a complex problem—offers a sense of fulfillment that builds over time. It doesn’t give you an instant dopamine hit, but the long-term satisfaction of mastering something difficult is well-documented.

Contrast that with the dopamine effect of shipping fast. When you complete a task, merge a PR, or close a ticket, you get a quick hit of satisfaction. It feels productive. But just like social media, where likes and notifications create an addictive cycle, rapid shipping can become its own habit—one that optimizes for speed rather than impact. The problem? Just like with social media addiction, the initial dopamine rush fades, leaving you chasing the next quick win instead of working on something meaningful.

The generative AI effect: speed without depth

I think Generative AI has only intensified this trend. The industry is fascinated with the ability to build and ship faster than ever before. The common argument is that rapid execution “opens space for solving bigger problems.” In theory, this should allow engineers to focus on higher-level creativity, but in reality, I don’t see this happening. Instead, we see an endless loop of iteration, where engineers optimize for getting things working quickly rather than deeply rethinking or improving systems in a meaningful way.

This is where the analogy to consumer behavior comes in. Buying something rarely satisfies the urge to buy—it usually reinforces it. In the same way, shipping something quickly doesn’t lead to stepping back and tackling bigger challenges. It often just leads to shipping something else quickly. Engineers become caught in a cycle where the act of delivering becomes the goal, rather than the depth or significance of what they’re building.

I recently experienced this firsthand when using Cursor AI to get something done with a technology I’m not very familiar with. I got the fast dopamine hit of opening a PR, but honestly, the most satisfaction didn’t come from writing that AI-assisted code. It came later—when I recorded a demo of what I had built using Loom. That act of reflection and sharing made the work feel meaningful, more than just the momentary rush of getting the code merged (Disclaimer: I have not even merged the code yet). This made me realize how much of the satisfaction in work comes not just from speed, but from understanding and presenting our achievements in a way that feels real and impactful.

Breaking the cycle: how do we reclaim deep work?

If we recognize that we’re stuck in a fast-shipping dopamine loop, how do we break free? Here are some thoughts:

1. Redefine success beyond speed – Businesses should recognize that speed is just one metric, not the only one. Encouraging engineers to think in longer-term cycles rather than quick sprints can help balance depth and velocity.
2. Create intentional spaces for deep work – Some companies attempt this by carving out “innovation teams”, but can we build this mindset into daily work instead of siloing it?
3. Challenge the default assumption that faster is better – Just because AI can accelerate development doesn’t mean everything should be built as quickly as possible. More speed doesn’t necessarily translate to better solutions.
4. Prioritize projects that force thoughtful engagement – Instead of optimizing for incremental changes, teams should invest in foundational work that demands critical thinking and craftsmanship.

The business dilemma: does deep work even benefit companies?

While these ideas focus on breaking the cycle, there is a fundamental challenge—businesses prefer short-term shipping because it directly correlates with profit. Anything meaningful that takes a long time is much harder to project in terms of profitability. This is where the tension lies: deep work benefits people 100%, but does it truly benefit businesses?

My ideas are optimizing for people’s experiences, not necessarily for business profitability. While I believe there is long-term value in fostering deep work, I don’t have a clear answer on how to convince leadership that it’s worth it. This is an open question: can we align meaningful, immersive work with business incentives, or is the current system too ingrained in short-term wins?

I don’t think we’ll ever eliminate the temptation of fast dopamine cycles in work, just like we can’t eliminate them in social media or consumer behavior. But we can be more aware of how they shape our industry and our individual ways of working.