Life Choice: Should Someone Highly Interested in AGI Research Jeopardize Their Existing Career to Pursue It?
Showing only #3746 and its comments.
See full discussionLog in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.Read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. That should give you some fuel to move forward.
If that’s too long, watch ‘The Simplest Thing in the World’
The Fountainhead is on my list. Listened to ‘The Simplest Thing in the World’. One message seems to be that one's creativity will continuously resist attempts to coerce it into doing something it doesn't want. A will of its own. I feel such resistance acutely at this current job, more so but no differently than during previous jobs and assignments, as we all have. But what is the import of the story to the present debate? My creative muse will continue fighting me so long as I'm trying to steer it towards other things? I have no doubt. The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think. Where does one draw the line between passion and security? Maybe there is no general-purpose explanation. I will continue reflecting.
The questions here are over what is practical, secure and strategic, all largely in the financial sense--or so I think.
There’s nothing practical about working a job you hate. There’s nothing practical about fighting yourself.
Where does one draw the line between passion and security?
There’s no security in not pursuing your passion, and there’s no need to make this kind of tradeoff anyway.
Conceded re: what is practical in the case of this job, or others that are hated. In the sense that the debate here relates to careers vs passions in general, I think the question of what is practical remains...
"No need to make this kind of tradeoff..."? Please explain.
Take another passion, such as playing the guitar. If one dislikes anything that stops them from playing, it's still impractical to only pursue guitar, isn't it? In general, one would run out of savings and be in poverty. It's practical to avoid that.
You could play the guitar and have a well-paying job you enjoy as well.
There exist people whose passions exclude all available paying jobs, unless this is not physically possible. Aspiring guitarists in dark ages.
Well, this is starting to sound a bit contrived. But even in the dark ages, people could be guitarists and find a job they love. Or they could create a new job they loved.
The guitarist line above is of course just a throwaway example. The core claims here seem very general to me. Is your stance that a person can always make a living doing something they enjoy? People can create all possible jobs, but this says nothing about human lifetimes, economics, etc. The first people couldn’t have had much fun, I wouldn’t think. Please explain.
It’s always possible to make a living doing something you enjoy. But if you’re looking for a guarantee, you will be disappointed.
It’s contrived beyond the specific example of the guitarist from the dark ages. You’ll never run out of examples that could be challenging for me to answer. I can’t give you all the solutions ahead of time. That doesn’t mean problems aren’t soluble.
All I can tell you is that you’re a problem-solving engine, so it’s possible possible for you to enjoy life 100% of the time, and that this is worth striving for.
When a revision addresses a criticism, you don’t counter-criticize the criticism, you deselect it at the bottom of the revision form.
To be sure, this isn’t a big deal. But try revising #3908 again, just to practice.
There's no security in not pursuing your passion
Do we mean by security something other than food/water/shelter? Or, resisting your passion only buys temporary security? This isn't true; people go their whole lives resisting their passions, and are secure.
You should reach far higher in life than merely ensuring food/water/shelter. It’s a pretty elementary concern and easily met.
… people go their whole lives resisting their passions, and are secure.
Physically maybe. I can’t look into those people’s minds but I suspect they don’t ever really feel psychologically secure. It takes a certain kind of mind to have physical security, rather than fulfillment, as one’s main concern for one’s whole life. https://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-esteem.html
It’s essentially living like an animal.
You didn’t mark this as a criticism, but it sounds like one. Consider revising your idea to mark it as a criticism. (No changes to the text necessary for that.)
I don't feel I had/have any criticism of your post (#3746), or of the Rand story, so left it as a comment.
But what is the import of the story to the present debate?
That sounds like a criticism. It implies that you don’t see the import.
Only that I didn't see it, not that there wasn't any, but I see that this is effectively the same. Edited the comment to be a criticism.
But what is the import of the story to the present debate?
‘The Simplest Thing in the World’ has themes about fear and safety vs self-actualization. For example:
What’s the quality that all the people you know have got, the outstanding quality in all of them? Their motive power? Fear. Not fear of anyone in particular, just fear. Just a great, blind force without object. Malicious fear. The kind that makes them want to see you suffer. Because they know that they, too, will have to suffer and it makes it easier, to know that you do also. The kind that makes them want to see you being small and funny and smutty. Small people are safe. It’s not really fear, it’s more than that. Like Mr. Crawford, for instance, who’s a lawyer and who’s glad when a client of his loses a suit. He’s glad, even though he loses money on it; even though it hurts his reputation. He’s glad, and he doesn’t even know that he’s glad. God, what a story there is in Mr. Crawford! If you could put him down on paper as he is, and explain just why he is like that, and . . .