Seems plausible. Not much incentive for the surplus to be given back to the employer. Need better incentives.

If we're not seeing more economic impact of AI in terms of GDP growth, in my opinion, it's mostly because gains and controls are concentrated in a few companies (mostly big tech and a couple of big startups) because of the lack of open infrastructure, open science and open-source

Here's my "Dark Leisure" theory of any potential productivity paradox in AI:

- most AI use rn is bottom up and hidden (employee first, not company first): employees vibe code, vibe market, vibe write and get stuff done faster

- in many orgs, there is too little incentive to

fabian

Seems plausible. Not much incentive for the surplus to be given back to the employer. Need better incentives. 

https://x.com/fabianstelzer/status/1926000937702764635

That’s basically the whole point of job stacking, which is only further enabled by AI. The data engineering job I had in energy was in-office, and I realized that for non-high-performant jobs, I basically would spend maybe ~20 hours doing serious work a week and then just sit there. I played Fortnite or built some of my old Farcaster projects during this time.

That’s not to say I was lazy— they really appreciated my work and wanted to hire more people like me in the future, so I basically told them this stuff less directly.

Job stacking as a job is like i could probably easily do 2 or maybe 3 $100k jobs at once if they’re remote— if you really push it then up to 8 and just no regard for being let go from some. That’s $200-800k/yr.

@pmarca shared the book on this called job stacking