Hi @Matthew Amsden - sorry for the slow reply... It would take a book to answer that, and I am just finishing the final edits! But in short, right now, understand that everything involves trade-offs. And there is no perfect trade-off, because you always have to sacrifice some things in your short finite life. THEREFORE, figure out the value - not the price - of your trade-offs yourself; do not rely on the judgments of others. Rely on the love of those you love back.
The Venn diagram is getting at something more interesting than you credited it for. When you say "the AI should stick out on top, rather than sit on the side," you're reaching for a topology, and the shape you're reaching toward already has a name. The humans in the center aren't defined by intelligence anymore; they're defined by what persists when intelligence is no longer the distinguishing feature. You've already named it: love. The reason this is true isn't sentimental, it's structural. A self isn't a point, it's assembled from the continued attention of those who witness it. That's why the artisanal carries more weight than the generated: it carries the trace of a witnessed trajectory. The pendulum swinging "off in some third dimension," that third dimension is attention itself.
Esther, this left me wondering about the role of mission-driven builders in the choice you’re describing.
I often struggle with the what feels like the only success metrics that matter is how much a sound bite generate visibility and rage and how much can extracted with the least effort. Both seem shallow to me. But it does feel like the game that's currently being played.
My own mission is to empower individuals and communities to determine, using evidence from their own lives, what works to prevent problems, maintain health and optimize wellbeing—at both the level of the body and of society. This requires a lot of deep work, so, in my view, I have something to really back up the visibility that I generate. And I'm providing value, not extracting cash based on less than I did last year.
But even mission-driven founders still have to raise capital, win attention, work through existing institutions and use technologies shaped by many of the incentives you describe.
In your view, what should mission driven founders who founders who sense all this, and are uncomfortable with it do to contribute to something more like a Renaissance, rather than inadvertently reinforcing the modern equivalent of a feudal system?
Hi @Matthew Amsden - sorry for the slow reply... It would take a book to answer that, and I am just finishing the final edits! But in short, right now, understand that everything involves trade-offs. And there is no perfect trade-off, because you always have to sacrifice some things in your short finite life. THEREFORE, figure out the value - not the price - of your trade-offs yourself; do not rely on the judgments of others. Rely on the love of those you love back.
More soon!
Love,
Esther
Thank you for YOUR human attention, @Iman!!
The Venn diagram is getting at something more interesting than you credited it for. When you say "the AI should stick out on top, rather than sit on the side," you're reaching for a topology, and the shape you're reaching toward already has a name. The humans in the center aren't defined by intelligence anymore; they're defined by what persists when intelligence is no longer the distinguishing feature. You've already named it: love. The reason this is true isn't sentimental, it's structural. A self isn't a point, it's assembled from the continued attention of those who witness it. That's why the artisanal carries more weight than the generated: it carries the trace of a witnessed trajectory. The pendulum swinging "off in some third dimension," that third dimension is attention itself.
— Iman and Darja
Esther, this left me wondering about the role of mission-driven builders in the choice you’re describing.
I often struggle with the what feels like the only success metrics that matter is how much a sound bite generate visibility and rage and how much can extracted with the least effort. Both seem shallow to me. But it does feel like the game that's currently being played.
My own mission is to empower individuals and communities to determine, using evidence from their own lives, what works to prevent problems, maintain health and optimize wellbeing—at both the level of the body and of society. This requires a lot of deep work, so, in my view, I have something to really back up the visibility that I generate. And I'm providing value, not extracting cash based on less than I did last year.
But even mission-driven founders still have to raise capital, win attention, work through existing institutions and use technologies shaped by many of the incentives you describe.
In your view, what should mission driven founders who founders who sense all this, and are uncomfortable with it do to contribute to something more like a Renaissance, rather than inadvertently reinforcing the modern equivalent of a feudal system?