Anytime I read one of those "just do what you're passionate about!" posts, or job postings that read like "we're looking for people who are passionate about [thing that literally no-one has ever been passionate about]" I try to think whether there's anything whatsoever that I'd enjoy (let alone stay passionate about) doing (at least) 40 hours a week, 49ish weeks a year.
I haven't thought of anything yet.
Left to my own devices, I'd probably spend 100 hours one week programming, then not touch a computer for two or three weeks, reading or building something or doing stuff outdoors instead. Lock me down to 40 hours every week, even weeks when I'm not in to it and would rather curl up on the couch for hours on end with some math books and a notebook or marathon-watch some Criterion movies or go camping with my family or whatever, and any fun I was having in those 40 hours will disappear fast.
It doesn't matter if the thing I'm clocking in to do is play video games of my choice and in the way that I choose, even—I'll be ready to not look at a video game for the next year within a matter of weeks.
That's not to say that I consider all work equally bad, but I'm probably not going to love anything at 40+ mandatory hours every week. The only way I can imagine enjoying that many hours on the clock is by splitting it between at least two very different things, like programming 4 hours/day then carrying heavy stuff at a construction site the next 4 hours, and even that might not do it over the long haul.
Your thoughts, ashark, are exactly how I feel. I love software development and have worked long days on websites I've developed with buddies, personal projects, etc. But on the job, even doing very similar things, it's not nearly the same level of enjoyment.
I crave the freedom you mention, and it's why I loved college so much. I'd spend a couple hours a day programming, a couple hours a day at classes and doing school work, a few hours hanging out with friends, some time reading, some time as parts of different organizations, some time at church, some time playing sports etc. and I loved it. To this day I think life is best lived like that.
However, I think it's hard to find a life like that in "the real world." I wish that would change.
> Left to my own devices, I'd probably spend 100 hours one week programming, then not touch a computer for two or three weeks, reading or building something or doing stuff outdoors instead.
Such a level of autonomy would be fantastic for a bunch of people (myself included!). The opposite extreme -- a continuous drudge of exactly 40 hours/week -- is pretty scary, because the work itself would have to be pretty mundane to be so predictably reliable. At some level, really creative and difficult problem-solving does have such burstiness built in.
But... one thing I've found in the process of matching "natural burstiness" with "externally-imposed stable output rate" is that sometimes, the drudgery is useful too. When I'm stuck in an unproductive state, continuing to do something helps to unstick me. Creative inspiration is sort of a positive feedback loop, where just taking a step (any step!) and trying something helps to fill me with ideas for next steps and alternatives. So I'm not exactly pleased about deadlines, or external pressure, but some pressure or goal (internally-imposed is best) is really helpful for me. There are still bursts and lulls but the lulls become more disciplined and useful somehow.
Of course, all of that is assuming that there's some interesting creative kernel to the work. If someone's complaining that 40 hours/week of CRUD apps is just not floating their boat... well... they've got deeper problems. :-)
For me it's not so much the absolute requirements (i.e. 8 hours a day, these specific hours, can't do anything else within that time) but rather the subordinate aspect of having no control over that. The way in which it's just the only option for seemingly _no reason_. It's totally arbitrary.
I'd love to work a job where I could say, choose three days a week to work (or alternatively have 100 days holiday, restricted to not allow huge stints off) and receive 60% of a reasonable salary.
Even better, though less realistic, would be an MMORPG-style job in which you could choose to put in 100 hours in week 1, 20 hours in week 2, etc and choose those hours whenever you wish.
Self employment comes close if you're not dealing with megacorps, but you still run into the problem that clients may not want you to just disappear for weeks at a time.
Thanks Stegosaurus, for articulating so well what I have also been strongly feeling about work.
I liked this part especially: "For me it's not so much the absolute requirements (i.e. 8 hours a day, these specific hours, can't do anything else within that time) but rather the subordinate aspect of having no control over that."
I would restate that in my own way as follows:
I consider myself thirsty for life, thirsty and desirous of enjoying my life experiences. Once someone has put me under contractual obligation to 'just do x' for a significant slice of my life, its really set into motion the pendulum's swing in the other direction: How can I not, almost immediately, begin to subconsciously yearn for the day when I can live differently? Whatever it is, whether its an office commute or even a lax remote job (hard to admit in the latter case), whether I'm building widgets or contributing to a huge multi-application 'Widgetron', confine me and you all but guarantee that one day I will seek release from you. It may take years, but thats life for me.
I don't think our society has achieved ethics yet, hasn't yet demonstrably earned ethical values for itself. And freedom is a value that is even higher or more rarified than ethics or the golden rule. In place of that we have a rampant survival ethos, with bits of social status signaling / prestige-mongering thrown in. Asking for self-determination in this environment can appear at times like walking into a soup kitchen and requesting their finest tiramisu. How dare you be so bold, slave?
I think AI will be the solution to the problem. Each human is given an AI which competes on their behalf in an open market, and the human consumes the AI's profit as needed. If all the AI's are the same then everyone should be around equal and money ceases to be a concern for anyone and you can use your time any way you wish!
That's my dream, anyway. I don't think 100 years is too far out for AGI. A robust utopian economy might be a little further out...
We will make them so they don't mind working for us. It would be cruel to make them "free". Like domestic dogs. They will be our partners in life and not autonomous creatures. I don't see any a priori reason that being smart would require resenting servitude.
As a thought experiment, consider if we developed a drug that makes humans enjoy slavery. Would slavery then be morally acceptable, provided that drug was furnished to the enslaved humans?
It's not directly relevant. If we don't build unhappy robots there will not be any unhappy robots and no potential for any extant robot to be unhappy.
Not two classes (with or without pill), nor a history of previously unhappy robots (pre-pill), and not even potentially unhappy robots (pills run out). Only happy, working robots.
We don't know enough about cognition to make ethical arguments for or against the use of AI yet. Maybe the systems behind AI will prove that it's as unethical for humans to be forced to work by society as it would be for an AI. Then who do we let be free?
> "we're looking for people who are passionate about [thing that literally no-one has ever been passionate about]"
I heard this framed pretty well last night by someone who worked for a video ads company. "We don't look for people who are bursting with passion to work on mobile video advertising. If someone came to us and said that we'd think they were pretty crazy. What we do want is people who are interested in solving interesting technical problems, and mobile video advertising just happens to have a lot of those."
I haven't thought of anything yet.
Left to my own devices, I'd probably spend 100 hours one week programming, then not touch a computer for two or three weeks, reading or building something or doing stuff outdoors instead. Lock me down to 40 hours every week, even weeks when I'm not in to it and would rather curl up on the couch for hours on end with some math books and a notebook or marathon-watch some Criterion movies or go camping with my family or whatever, and any fun I was having in those 40 hours will disappear fast.
It doesn't matter if the thing I'm clocking in to do is play video games of my choice and in the way that I choose, even—I'll be ready to not look at a video game for the next year within a matter of weeks.
That's not to say that I consider all work equally bad, but I'm probably not going to love anything at 40+ mandatory hours every week. The only way I can imagine enjoying that many hours on the clock is by splitting it between at least two very different things, like programming 4 hours/day then carrying heavy stuff at a construction site the next 4 hours, and even that might not do it over the long haul.