Tim H's Shortform

Tim H

Tim H's Shortform — LessWrong

Tim H's Shortform

8th Jun 2026

1 min read

3

This is a special post for quick takes by Tim H. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.

10 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:30 AM

[-]Tim H3mo1-2

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?

[-]simulus3mo42

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).

[-]Tim H3mo10

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.

[-]Eli Tyre3mo3-1

(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.

[-]Tim H2mo10

What work do you expect to find important or meaningful after ASI?

[-]Viliam3mo3-1

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.)

[-]Tim H3mo10

Option (B), then? It is not Jevons paradox, but ya'll are helping me see there's nothing particularly puzzling here.

[-]Tim H1mo10

@Eli Tyre To clarify what I see as inconsistent, it is to simultaneously:

Support ASI displacing all paid human work because it would enable everyone to spend their time doing unpaid activities of their choice.
Currently have net worth sufficient to retire early and spend all your time doing unpaid activities of your choice.
Currently be doing paid work (that would be done instead by ASI, were it available) nonetheless---and enjoying it more than you would enjoy being retired currently.[1]

Working at a frontier lab or otherwise contributing towards the arrival of ASI is not essential to this scenario. I just imagine that many such people currently meet these three criteria.

[1] With regard to the meaning of "enjoying" here, the idea is that this criterion of human wellbeing in #3 correspond to the criterion implicit in #1's notion of people being better off when freed from paid labor.

[-]Eli Tyre1mo51

Right this isn't inconsistent, because just because one is doing paid work doesn't mean that the fact that it's paid is decisive or even relevant at all to your decision to do that rather than something else.

It could be that you would do that work even if it were unpaid, but it happens to be highly paid, and so that's a nice bonus.

I think this probably does describe at least some folks that the AGI labs?

[-]Tim H1mo10

Thank you. Right, it's not about being paid per se. What I actually have in mind (but didn't write) is more about impact, contribution, working together with others, etc. Work with all those characteristics will also be made scarce by ASI, I fear. So maybe what I want to say is: what characteristics of the work make them enjoy it, what features are decisive? And how does that set of decisive features compare with the types of work that will be made obsolete by ASI? I'll have to keep working on clarifying this (and maybe I'll eventually see I'm mistaken).

Moderation Log

More from Tim H

Curated and popular this week

10Comments

10 comments, sorted by

top scoring

Click to highlight new comments since: Today at 8:30 AM

[-]Tim H3mo1-2

[-]simulus3mo42

[-]Tim H3mo10

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?

[-]Eli Tyre3mo3-1

(A) both view it as a good thing to “free people from work” and (seemingly inconsistently) continue working themselves despite adequate personal wealth?

[-]Tim H2mo10

What work do you expect to find important or meaningful after ASI?

[-]Viliam3mo3-1

[-]Tim H3mo10

Option (B), then? It is not Jevons paradox, but ya'll are helping me see there's nothing particularly puzzling here.

[-]Tim H1mo10

@Eli Tyre To clarify what I see as inconsistent, it is to simultaneously:

Support ASI displacing all paid human work because it would enable everyone to spend their time doing unpaid activities of their choice.
Currently have net worth sufficient to retire early and spend all your time doing unpaid activities of your choice.
Currently be doing paid work (that would be done instead by ASI, were it available) nonetheless---and enjoying it more than you would enjoy being retired currently.[1]

Working at a frontier lab or otherwise contributing towards the arrival of ASI is not essential to this scenario. I just imagine that many such people currently meet these three criteria.

[-]Eli Tyre1mo51

[-]Tim H1mo10

Moderation Log