A Workaphile’s Apology " Some Thoughts on a Mysterious Universe

Disclaimer: No LLMs were used in the writing of this essay—all em dashes are mine1.

Soon after the AlexNet breakthrough burst onto the scene over a decade ago, I became preoccupied with the following question:

What will a meaningful human life look like when thinking is best done by machines?

Versions of this question are now frequently discussed in the mainstream2. I have yet to, however, come across a satisfactory answer that is applicable to a particular kind of person (more on this shortly). My own wranglings with the question were fruitless for the longest time but during the last year I have begun to glimpse outlines of an answer. These outlines are blurry and will likely remain so for the immediate future, but I believe they are interesting enough to share.

The question as I posed it contains multiple ambiguous words and resolving these ambiguities is critical to answering it. One common thread in the public sphere has centered around what is meant by “thinking”, whether AGI can surpass human intelligence in its full generality, and whether such generalness even exists, questions that I find distressingly dull. While it is indeed very interesting that the main form of non-human intelligence (large language models or LLMs) we have so far built is seemingly radically different from our own, at least developmentally3, it is also clear that this intelligence is general and will soon match and exceed human intelligence across all dimensions, if it has not already4.

The ambiguous words in the question that I do find interesting are “meaningful”, “human”, and “machine”. We take for granted what “human” means, but I do not think we should. To start though, let us begin with “meaningful”, as meaning lies at the core of what I am trying to answer and is the aspect of human life that I believe will be most impacted by AGI.

Whither meaning?

There is, obviously, no single way to live a meaningful human life. Some ways may be more rewarding to the individual; some more beneficial to society; some lead to great material wealth; some to inner growth; all can bestow meaning on an individual when suited to their personality and preferences. It is safe to say that our ways of living have multiplied as the technological capabilities of our civilization have increased. I expect this to continue to be true after AGI. But a particular kind of way of life, and a particular kind of person, may not. This is the person whose primary source of meaning comes from their work. An excellent blog post by Harvey Lederman, a philosopher at NYU, nicely articulates the divide between those who derive meaning from their work and those who do not, and the way in which AGI will differentially impact people who do. While Lederman’s blog post is not required reading for this one, it does set the stage nicely.

Let’s call the people in question “workaphiles”.5 They enjoy their work to the degree that they have trouble defining boundaries with other aspects of their lives, and they view their life’s primary purpose as that of doing useful work. Some may be maladjusted, even obsessive about their work, but that is not the defining trait in question.

Most people do not fit these criteria; they instead find meaning in raising a family, in adventuring, in the company of friends, in travel, in altered states of mind, in competitive sports, and so on. Those are perfectly valid ways to live a meaningful life and will likely become even more so in a post-AGI world. I would guess that most people (80-95%?) do not find meaning in work yet currently have to work to survive. If we safely and successfully transition to a post-required-work, post-AGI society, this large majority will be better off, living meaningful lives without the drudgery of non-purposeful work.

If you are not a workaphile, you may essentially ignore the rest of this blog post and await the upcoming utopia; you only have the questions of alignment—which I will not touch upon—and civilizational course—which I will—to worry about.

My concern is for workaphiles, as they are my tribe, and I do not want to see my people die out. We are not better people; many would say we are worse, and that is fine, but not so much so that we deserve to go extinct. I also think that workaphiles have punched above their weight in their contributions to human society in the past and they may yet have a role to play in its future. Lederman wistfully acknowledges our likely extinction and leaves it at that. I would like to see if there is something we can do about it.

A thought experiment to determine if you are a workaphile: imagine that the technology exists to make a perfect clone of yourself, including your present memory, mental state, and aptitudes. This clone can therefore do everything you can do. One of you will live the life you originally intended, carrying out useful work, ensuring that your net impact on society remains...