Among people working at frontier AI labs (or otherwise contributing to progress towards AGI), how many (A) both view it as a good thing to “free people from work” and (seemingly inconsistently) continue working themselves despite adequate personal wealth? Otherwise, is it mostly that (B) such folks need/value the additional earnings, or do they (C) consider their contribution towards the loss of meaningful paid work to be outweighed by other considerations? Or do they/you think (D) plentiful decent jobs will continue persist, or is there something else I’m missing?
(A) both view it as a good thing to “free people from work” and (seemingly inconsistently) continue working themselves despite adequate personal wealth?
I don’t think this is inconsistent at all.
I want to be free from work, in the sense of having enough money that I don’t need to work to pay rent. I will at that point, in all likelihood, keep working, but with more freedom to do only and exactly the work that is most important or meaningful.
I don’t think (A) is inconsistent. If one believes that “freeing other people from work” is a very good thing, then the value of doing so is worth the personal sacrifice/effort/labor (even if there is no personal financial motive).
The value of doing so, in this analysis, is only the benefit to others? It’s a purely altruistic motivation? Or is it not the case that they take deep satisfaction in performing this service?
I mean, the nature of much human work is expending effort to benefit someone else or, more generally, a larger project. People find doing so meaningful, sacrificing a shallow sort of comfort or pleasure for the deeper satisfaction of accomplishing something good. Does it not seem at least ironic that this particular noble sacrifice could end the possibility of meaningful work for others?
I acknowledge the logical possibility of a noncontradiction here, but I am skeptical that in reality these folks would rather be doing something other than the engaging, exciting, meaningful work they’re doing.
The seeming inconsistency is called Jevons paradox. It’s like, the faster internet becomes, the more time people spend there, although in theory they could just read the same amount of text, only faster, and then stop.
I can imagine various reasons, not such which are the true ones. Some people consider their jobs fun, but may want to see the other unfun jobs gone, like maybe replaced by UBI. For some people, no amount of money is enough, because they can imagine more ambitious goals, whether selfish or altruistic. (You could start your own spaceship company, or single-handedly finance curing some deadly disease.)
Among people working at frontier AI labs (or otherwise contributing to progress towards AGI), how many (A) both view it as a good thing to “free people from work” and (seemingly inconsistently) continue working themselves despite adequate personal wealth? Otherwise, is it mostly that (B) such folks need/value the additional earnings, or do they (C) consider their contribution towards the loss of meaningful paid work to be outweighed by other considerations? Or do they/you think (D) plentiful decent jobs will continue persist, or is there something else I’m missing?
I don’t think this is inconsistent at all.
I want to be free from work, in the sense of having enough money that I don’t need to work to pay rent. I will at that point, in all likelihood, keep working, but with more freedom to do only and exactly the work that is most important or meaningful.
I don’t think (A) is inconsistent. If one believes that “freeing other people from work” is a very good thing, then the value of doing so is worth the personal sacrifice/effort/labor (even if there is no personal financial motive).
The value of doing so, in this analysis, is only the benefit to others? It’s a purely altruistic motivation? Or is it not the case that they take deep satisfaction in performing this service?
I mean, the nature of much human work is expending effort to benefit someone else or, more generally, a larger project. People find doing so meaningful, sacrificing a shallow sort of comfort or pleasure for the deeper satisfaction of accomplishing something good. Does it not seem at least ironic that this particular noble sacrifice could end the possibility of meaningful work for others?
I acknowledge the logical possibility of a noncontradiction here, but I am skeptical that in reality these folks would rather be doing something other than the engaging, exciting, meaningful work they’re doing.
The seeming inconsistency is called Jevons paradox. It’s like, the faster internet becomes, the more time people spend there, although in theory they could just read the same amount of text, only faster, and then stop.
I can imagine various reasons, not such which are the true ones. Some people consider their jobs fun, but may want to see the other unfun jobs gone, like maybe replaced by UBI. For some people, no amount of money is enough, because they can imagine more ambitious goals, whether selfish or altruistic. (You could start your own spaceship company, or single-handedly finance curing some deadly disease.)
Option (B), then? It is not Jevons paradox, but ya’ll are helping me see there’s nothing particularly puzzling here.