This is the paradox of our time: the very tools designed to free us from labor are trapping us in an endless cycle of escalating work. As our productivity increases, our standards and expectations rise even faster, creating a psychological Jevons Paradox that threatens to consume our humanity in the pursuit of ever-greater output. We become victims of our own efficiency.
After I looked up Jevons Paradox, I couldn’t agree more with He’s point. It seems the way to break the paradox is to simply sit in “not doing”— To simply be useless. Perhaps not all of the time, but definitely some of the time.
No one doubts human beings are special—indeed unique. After all, people are (to our knowledge) the only ones pondering evolution, not to mention creating symphonies and skyscrapers. Still, that is not saying much: All species are unique, or else they would not be distinct species in their own right. Each species can do things humans only dream of, whether flying or diving deep under the sea.
Anthropocentrism is one perspective. There are many others worth considering too because the more one learns, the better one is able to make moral choices.
The next day NBC’s president decided to make an exception to the network’s ban on recorded sound in order to interview Morrison and play a portion of the recordings. (Yes, both NBC and CBS banned recorded sound over their air, and would continue to do so for another decade. […] ).
It’s telling that the lesson America’s big radio networks took from this incredible eye-witness recording was simply, “Nope, no more of that!” As sound scholar Michael Biel pointed out, “This is…the first time that a recording was allowed to be broadcast on NBC, and I can count on my fingers the other times that NBC broadcast recordings — knowingly and unknowingly — until the middle of WWII.”
As we gathered data, surveyed people and set up experiments, it became clear that those tiny shortcuts – sometimes hailed as a hallmark of efficient communication – undermine relationships instead of simplifying them.
After I thought about this a bit, this seems to be a clear benefit: We’re really good at trying to imagine (and predict) what other people are really thinking. We pick up subtle clues from body language and more, and we do it subconsciously. So why wouldn’t we also pick up subtle clues in a medium like text?
Only with Substack does anyone perceive creator branding as being subservient to the platform — something that ought to be seen merely as an interchangeable CMS — like that.
I’ve tried a few different things on Substack. (None of them ever took off, and each of them I subsequently moved to web sites I directly control.) I’ve always felt something was off, and lately I’ve been souring more on the whole platform. This piece by Gruber puts a clear, fine point on what I dislike about Substack.
This is what makes the LLMs feel different. So far, computers have always been perfect—except when they’re wrong/broken. That’s fundamentally not how people are. LLMs came along and they’re imperfect. Always. Just like people.
A friend and I recently did a 48-hour fast. (One of the low-lights was going to dinner with people on our way to a concert… everyone’s having burgers and salmon, and I’m drinking black coffee. Anyway.) Our design was to finish the fast by doing one of my usual quadrupedal movement (QM) workouts at my favorite tennis courts, and then a run (as best as possible) around 1.75 mile trail loop. Then break our fasts by eating.
By the end of the QM, I was utterly exhausted. For a cool down I worked on a sweat-angel for about 5 minutes. Left a legit puddle where my head was. And then we did the trail run. Several people joined us for the QM and run, and much fun was had by all.
There’s no real takeaway here. Just a photo and a note to myself: Sometimes I push things. Sometimes I push things too far. Where’s the edge?