A viewer asks what I would tell myself at 24. I spend the video on three things: getting involved with AI, working on something real and building habits that support my health.
Those are personal priorities, not a universal timetable. Some people at 24 are raising children, supporting parents or managing illness. There is no single version of a young life with unlimited time and no responsibilities.
Still, the question is useful: what can I start learning now that I will be glad to understand later?
Learn AI by doing something you can check
In the clip I am enthusiastic about the opportunity in AI. That is a judgment about where I would put my attention, not a promise of a salary, a successful company or an easy route into any profession.
A useful first experiment would be a small task with a result you can verify. For example, take public notes and try turning them into a structured summary. Check it against the originals. Notice omissions, invented details and the time spent correcting them. That is a proposed exercise, not a project I demonstrate in this video.
The skill is larger than getting an impressive answer. Can you explain what the task needs, recognise a wrong result and decide whether the tool actually helped? Work on those questions before declaring yourself an expert.
Does three months of work equal a year?
The clip includes a 100–120-hour working-week comparison attributed to Elon Musk. I have not verified that attribution or the exact quotation. We can, however, check the arithmetic independently.
Use 13 weeks as a simple three-month approximation, and compare it with 52 weeks at 40 hours a week, without subtracting holidays:
| Example | Total hours | Share of the 2,080-hour comparison |
|---|---|---|
| 13 weeks × 100 hours | 1,300 | 62.5% |
| 13 weeks × 120 hours | 1,560 | 75% |
| 52 weeks × 40 hours | 2,080 | 100% |
So neither three-month example equals that full year. More importantly, equal hours would not prove equal learning, output or quality. Fatigue, feedback, the task and the way you practise all matter to the result.
These hours are being checked, not recommended. WHO and ILO report that working at least 55 hours a week is associated with higher risks of stroke and death from ischaemic heart disease compared with 35–40 hours.[1] A motivational comparison is not a reason to treat extreme hours as a healthy standard.
Health belongs in the same plan
My third answer in the video is to take health seriously before the next decade arrives. I talk about training, eating well and habits. A visible six-pack is not a medical definition of health, and a person’s appearance does not tell us their whole condition.
There is a tension worth resolving: advice to protect your health should not come with a working schedule that leaves no room to protect it. Choose a workload you can sustain, make room for recovery and adapt activity to your circumstances.
I would keep the ambition in the original answer: learn, try, get feedback, improve. I would measure progress by what I can do better, not by how dramatically I can describe my hours. The one-hour practice calculation makes a similar distinction between an input and a guaranteed outcome.
At 24, start building something. Include the person doing the building in the plan.
Sources and calculation notes
-
[1] WHO/ILO report on long working hours, 17 May 2021. Population-level associations, not an individual risk prediction.
-
Arithmetic: 13 × 100 = 1,300; 13 × 120 = 1,560; 52 × 40 = 2,080; 1,300 ÷ 2,080 = 62.5%; 1,560 ÷ 2,080 = 75%. Thirteen weeks approximates three months; no holidays deducted. Reproducible inputs. No verified Musk quotation or productivity multiplier is asserted.
-
Original video and thumbnail: Eduard Luta on TikTok. Published 2026-06-16. Research checked 27 September 2026.