Fwiw I think IG is a bit overrated. Newsletters and text social are probably still pretty good. That’s where readers live. Far too much passive scrolling on IG
You're not factoring in hedonic adaptation. Humans adapt fast and their benchmarks change. As you grow rich, instead of satiety, your hunger for money increases. Generally that is. Not true for everyone, ofcourse.
For the people who were never interested in the AGI goal, the loss to companies won't be significant. Employees are replaceable. What's difficult to replace is the extremely passionate and smart individuals. But you won't have to replace them because they're in it because of the mission, not the equity.
Follow up question since I was reading the first linked post: Is the problem that AI is making humans more ‘dumb’ and deferential, or is it that it is exposing the clear gap between those who just spend two seconds to consider what they’re working on? Even with hard work, a subset of people were still not verifying what they did and cutting corners in passivity.
Maybe it’s just highlighting something that already existed, and AI use prevents the left tail outcomes of poor/lazy work by making them ‘less wrong’ (in the future, will it be worse to have a lazy doctor who uses AI than a lazy doctor with outdated knowledge?)
I’m not sure how swayed I am by my own argument but it did get me thinking. Great post!
Fwiw I think IG is a bit overrated. Newsletters and text social are probably still pretty good. That’s where readers live. Far too much passive scrolling on IG
instagram is reels focused ~ reels viewer = short attention span, X users read articles, will read a book.
You're not factoring in hedonic adaptation. Humans adapt fast and their benchmarks change. As you grow rich, instead of satiety, your hunger for money increases. Generally that is. Not true for everyone, ofcourse.
For the people who were never interested in the AGI goal, the loss to companies won't be significant. Employees are replaceable. What's difficult to replace is the extremely passionate and smart individuals. But you won't have to replace them because they're in it because of the mission, not the equity.
Follow up question since I was reading the first linked post: Is the problem that AI is making humans more ‘dumb’ and deferential, or is it that it is exposing the clear gap between those who just spend two seconds to consider what they’re working on? Even with hard work, a subset of people were still not verifying what they did and cutting corners in passivity.
Maybe it’s just highlighting something that already existed, and AI use prevents the left tail outcomes of poor/lazy work by making them ‘less wrong’ (in the future, will it be worse to have a lazy doctor who uses AI than a lazy doctor with outdated knowledge?)
I’m not sure how swayed I am by my own argument but it did get me thinking. Great post!