5 ms·

I too would very happily do just the bits of my job that I like, when and how I want, and have any requests or comments or complaints I make get immediate atten

I too would very happily do just the bits of my job that I like, when and how I want, and have any requests or comments or complaints I make get immediate attention and responses. All in the knowledge that no one is going to be time-tracking me or doing performance reviews, and I can just not do work at any moment I don't feel like it or have something better to do that day, like go to my private island or take my private jet to burning man etc (or as it turns out do a talk at Stanford). All while you have so much money that the price of anything from clothes to cars to houses is just some arbitrary number that has no meaning to you it is so absolutely tiny number... not that you actually buy anything yourself any more, mainly your team of personal staff deal with that grubby reality. As for the rest of us, well we need to pay the bills while playing "the game" and politics and cowtowing to keep the money coming.

taneq 10mo ago
Exactly. If you work in a field that’s close to your interests, there are probably parts of your job that you’d do for fun even if infinitely wealthy. It’s the other stuff, the boring annoying grind, that makes it a job and not a hobby.
aatd86 10mo ago
He was in your spot at some point I've heard. Nothing is impossible.
- black_knight 10mo ago
  Dreams and hopes are powerful weapons of suppression. Everyone is a millionaire just down on their luck at the moment… In our advanced society, with incredible automation, we should _all_ have vastly more freedom and control over our time.
  - tempestn 10mo ago
    That attitude is the weapon of suppression. Yes, it's true that life isn't fair. But it's also true that people have agency and can make material improvements to their own quality of life through smart decisions and dedication. Of course most of us won't start the next Google, but that doesn't mean dreams and hope are bad in general.
    - black_knight 10mo ago
      I am not saying we should be defeatist! I making the argument that it does not, and morally should not, have to be so that we all have to toil when we have such a wealth of technology. How we go about changing this, I do not know, but everyone just playing along nicely in hope of one day being the one who strikes gold seems not to be working! “Life isn’t fair, suck it up and get good!” is another form of suppression/delusion. Well, if life isn’t it fair, let us at least try to counteract that with cooperation. It seems to me that we have all the tools and technologies we need to make it a lot better.
      - tempestn 10mo ago
        This framing I'm on board with. The original comment took it too far for me, and even if not intended as defeatist I think could encourage that response. I'm all for people working not only to better their own conditions, but society as a whole.
    - vidarh 10mo ago
      We have no evidence that people have meanginful agency, or even agency at all. It is an assumption that to start with requires that the universe is not largely or entirely deterministic beyond what we can measure, but even in the case of some "hidden variable" that provides agency (try to even define it in a way that doesn't make it either deterministic, random, or a combination that implies no actual control) we have plenty of evidence that events outside our control ("life isn't fair") means that the vast majority of people, while they may make decisions - with or without agency - that will make material improvements - still are not able to get anywhere near a position that makes it meaningful in this context. Dreams and hopes are great - I believe we have zero actual agency, but that doesn't mean I lie in bed despairing, because not doing the work and trying will still have negative effects whether I have agency over that decision or not. But the point is that dreams and hopes are also often used to play up the idea that "anyone" can achieve something everyone clearly can't, and so for most people, their most ambitious dreams will never be reached, and so a better gamble for most people would be to work for a society that improves everyones odds at reaching at least some of them.
  - aatd86 10mo ago
    This is very true but the path to that seems to require a weird optimization where it is concentrated among a few before being being widespread. Technologic improvements should help. Help decouple time and money.
    - black_knight 10mo ago
      Why though? And when does this start being for everyone? We have had agricultural machines for ages, but I still have to pay an ever increasing part of my salary (and hence time here on earth) not to starve.
      - aatd86 10mo ago
        Because of asymmetry. Some people are more inclined toward certain things than others. People who are excellent at math are much more likely to be able to advance AI for instance. The goal of physical systems being to remain at rest/(humans included ;) the gradient of resources lean toward these people so that they can improve the technology allowing everyone to be able to conserve their energy (be lazy in a sense).
- krelian 10mo ago
  So was the last lottery winner. I can certainly improve my chances but there is a huge amount of luck involved.
  - Traster 10mo ago
    And importantly, in this analogy - most people here aren't even able to play that lottery. He founded a company based on the research he did whilst studying for a government funded PhD. Most people are not in a position in their life where they could even spend time trying to do research that would result in this type of eventual wealth.
    - aatd86 10mo ago
      This is one of the easiest paths to gain a competitive advantage that can be monetized. You are much less likely to fall into a pool of money. Just like becoming a MD has much better odds at getting you some amount of money than dropping out of school. About the same path by the way. But you can keep playing the lottery if you think it has better odds or even the same odds...
  - aatd86 10mo ago
    If you don't try you are sure to not win. The rest is about being able to put the odds in your favor. You obviously can't do that with lottery. There is no logical lever.
- pyrale 10mo ago
  https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2023/07/28/the-infamous-coin-toss/ https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2023/07/28/the-infamous-coin...
- Cthulhu_ 10mo ago
  Not for long; he was 25 when Google was founded, it was a billion dollar company not long after. He could've retired when Google went public in 2004.
  - aatd86 10mo ago
    AI replacing workers and launching the post-money economy aside, it should probably not be about age or actual networth but outcome. That should still be a worthy and attainable goal. He is not the only rich person out there...
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
z0ltan 10mo ago
[dead]

taneq 10mo ago

Exactly. If you work in a field that’s close to your interests, there are probably parts of your job that you’d do for fun even if infinitely wealthy. It’s the other stuff, the boring annoying grind, that makes it a job and not a hobby.

aatd86 10mo ago

He was in your spot at some point I've heard. Nothing is impossible.

black_knight 10mo ago
Dreams and hopes are powerful weapons of suppression. Everyone is a millionaire just down on their luck at the moment… In our advanced society, with incredible automation, we should _all_ have vastly more freedom and control over our time.
- tempestn 10mo ago
  That attitude is the weapon of suppression. Yes, it's true that life isn't fair. But it's also true that people have agency and can make material improvements to their own quality of life through smart decisions and dedication. Of course most of us won't start the next Google, but that doesn't mean dreams and hope are bad in general.
  - black_knight 10mo ago
    I am not saying we should be defeatist! I making the argument that it does not, and morally should not, have to be so that we all have to toil when we have such a wealth of technology. How we go about changing this, I do not know, but everyone just playing along nicely in hope of one day being the one who strikes gold seems not to be working! “Life isn’t fair, suck it up and get good!” is another form of suppression/delusion. Well, if life isn’t it fair, let us at least try to counteract that with cooperation. It seems to me that we have all the tools and technologies we need to make it a lot better.
    - tempestn 10mo ago
      This framing I'm on board with. The original comment took it too far for me, and even if not intended as defeatist I think could encourage that response. I'm all for people working not only to better their own conditions, but society as a whole.
  - vidarh 10mo ago
    We have no evidence that people have meanginful agency, or even agency at all. It is an assumption that to start with requires that the universe is not largely or entirely deterministic beyond what we can measure, but even in the case of some "hidden variable" that provides agency (try to even define it in a way that doesn't make it either deterministic, random, or a combination that implies no actual control) we have plenty of evidence that events outside our control ("life isn't fair") means that the vast majority of people, while they may make decisions - with or without agency - that will make material improvements - still are not able to get anywhere near a position that makes it meaningful in this context. Dreams and hopes are great - I believe we have zero actual agency, but that doesn't mean I lie in bed despairing, because not doing the work and trying will still have negative effects whether I have agency over that decision or not. But the point is that dreams and hopes are also often used to play up the idea that "anyone" can achieve something everyone clearly can't, and so for most people, their most ambitious dreams will never be reached, and so a better gamble for most people would be to work for a society that improves everyones odds at reaching at least some of them.
- aatd86 10mo ago
  This is very true but the path to that seems to require a weird optimization where it is concentrated among a few before being being widespread. Technologic improvements should help. Help decouple time and money.
  - black_knight 10mo ago
    Why though? And when does this start being for everyone? We have had agricultural machines for ages, but I still have to pay an ever increasing part of my salary (and hence time here on earth) not to starve.
    - aatd86 10mo ago
      Because of asymmetry. Some people are more inclined toward certain things than others. People who are excellent at math are much more likely to be able to advance AI for instance. The goal of physical systems being to remain at rest/(humans included ;) the gradient of resources lean toward these people so that they can improve the technology allowing everyone to be able to conserve their energy (be lazy in a sense).
krelian 10mo ago
So was the last lottery winner. I can certainly improve my chances but there is a huge amount of luck involved.
- Traster 10mo ago
  And importantly, in this analogy - most people here aren't even able to play that lottery. He founded a company based on the research he did whilst studying for a government funded PhD. Most people are not in a position in their life where they could even spend time trying to do research that would result in this type of eventual wealth.
  - aatd86 10mo ago
    This is one of the easiest paths to gain a competitive advantage that can be monetized. You are much less likely to fall into a pool of money. Just like becoming a MD has much better odds at getting you some amount of money than dropping out of school. About the same path by the way. But you can keep playing the lottery if you think it has better odds or even the same odds...
- aatd86 10mo ago
  If you don't try you are sure to not win. The rest is about being able to put the odds in your favor. You obviously can't do that with lottery. There is no logical lever.
pyrale 10mo ago
https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2023/07/28/the-infamous-coin-toss/ https://ergodicityeconomics.com/2023/07/28/the-infamous-coin...
Cthulhu_ 10mo ago
Not for long; he was 25 when Google was founded, it was a billion dollar company not long after. He could've retired when Google went public in 2004.
- aatd86 10mo ago
  AI replacing workers and launching the post-money economy aside, it should probably not be about age or actual networth but outcome. That should still be a worthy and attainable goal. He is not the only rich person out there...
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]

z0ltan 10mo ago

[dead]