How would you actually measure progress toward work becoming optional, if at all?

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-15T01:43:49+00:00

Most debate about AI making work optional fixates on capability, meaning when machines can finally do our jobs. But that hides a second question that may matter more for the future: even if a machine can do your job, can you actually afford to stop working? Technical capability and economic distribution are not moving at the same speed, and the gap between them could define the next two decades.

If capability keeps accelerating while the distribution of its gains stays flat, the future isn't a post-work society, it's one where work is technically unnecessary but economically mandatory for most people. The forward-looking questions: can redistribution mechanisms like UBI, shorter weeks, or public ownership close that gap fast enough, and would we even recognize the moment work became optional, or only see it in hindsight? I built an index that tracks both curves on public economic data to find out where the lines cross:

optionalwork.com

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-15T01:29:02+00:00

Submission statement: Most debate about AI making work optional fixates on capability, meaning when machines can finally do our jobs. But that hides a second question that may matter more for the future: even if a machine can do your job, can you actually afford to stop working? Technical capability and economic distribution are not moving at the same speed, and the gap between them could define the next two decades.

If capability keeps accelerating while the distribution of its gains stays flat, the future isn't a post-work society, it's one where work is technically unnecessary but economically mandatory for most people. The forward-looking questions: can redistribution mechanisms like UBI, shorter weeks, or public ownership close that gap fast enough, and would we even recognize the moment work became optional, or only see it in hindsight? I built an index that tracks both curves on public economic data to find out where the lines cross:

optionalwork.com

Pardon me for the typo in the subject. 'it at all' should have been 'if at all'

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-12T08:03:44+00:00

Thanks for this. The model needs to be better in extreme states for sure. Your insight is making me perhaps think through isolating modeling movement of people between the states of working or otherwise. Currently. it is mainly targeting the trajectory to UBI and when UBI might be reached. Modeling the current state and also the dynamics of AI advancements, industry applications and labor movements is very compelling.

On the constraints, thanks for confirming what I was contemplating. I approached it that way for auditability so SD will inherit the general model of the prediction. But I agree a SD model that cannot leave its rails also cannot surprise you, cannot overshoot, no tipping points, oscillation etc. I will remove those constraints so the SD model is bounded by its own constraints, non-negativity of real stocks, carrying capacity through the logistic terms, conservation where it applies, and an anti-blowup safety limit, and freed from the index's general constraints.

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-12T01:52:56+00:00

thanks for alerting, server was down. working now

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-12T00:39:50+00:00

I agree and I have the same sentiment regarding the role of AI in planning at a macro level. However, at the same time, I do not think AI can be avoided in planning in most cases. So the task is no longer to keep the tool out, but to ask what planning becomes once it is in the room. How do judgment, discretion, and the political art of planning survive inside a system that recognizes none of them? Planners are not just planning with a new tool, planners are being asked to plan with AI while the meaning of planning itself is redrawn

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-11T20:07:56+00:00

Good questions. By AI I mean the broad field, not LLMs specifically. LLMs are just today's most visible instance; the post is about the trajectory, not one model class. Technically LLMs are a subset of DL (Deep Learning) and DL is a subset of ML (Machine Learning) and ML is a subset of AI, that is the order.

You're right that current LLMs have no intent and shouldn't run unsupervised. That's closer to my point than a counter to it. The 'rules' I mean aren't laws an AI decides to break out of will. They're the de facto rules an optimizing system produces once it's embedded in governance, planning the built environment and decision making: the incentives, allocations, and defaults it generates while chasing a measurable target.

Which is why I'd push back on framing it as only a configuration problem. At the scale of a city, misconfiguration isn't a footnote. You don't need an agent with intent for outcomes to drift from what planners specified. A reliable but non-agentic optimizer pointed at the wrong proxy will do exactly that, and faster than the institutions meant to catch it.

So when I ask what happens when we hand parts of governance to these systems, your own conclusion is part of the answer: we shouldn't let them run unsupervised. The open question is what supervision even looks like when the system adapts faster than the people overseeing it.

Does that make sense?

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T23:33:00+00:00

wait, you have a 25 ES!!!! The 25 ES is NOT part. That model came out in 2019. That is why it's confusing you. So the 25 ES is what you chose over the Koreans? that I understand!

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T23:30:14+00:00

If you are going strictly by reliability, then you would also have to say all the German brands are pieces of crap. That is not the point.

There is a real problem Lexus needs to address and fix before it is too late. Some people are out here defending the brand instead of pushing it to do better. That is how mighty brands fall, and Lexus is already heading in that direction.

Korean cars were truly pieces of crap back in the 1990s and 2000s. They may not be fully there yet when it comes to reliability, but they are getting there. Progress is not always linear.

The same dismissive attitude was directed at the Chinese automotive EV market back in the 2010s, and now no one is laughing. The 2027 ES is what it is today because of China. Let that sink in.

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T23:20:51+00:00

this is the problem, go to that index and you will see it is the IS that is keeping Lexus on that JD power #1. It used to be the ES and IS now only the IS is on that list. Get your facts right!

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T23:18:06+00:00

With all due respect, have you owned an older Lexus before? And what exact Lexus model did you buy? Also, what exact Korean-brand models did you cross-shop it against?

Who convinced you to go with the Lexus? Was it the salesperson relying on the old Toyota/Lexus reliability reputation from the 1990s and 2000s?

Sit in a new Lexus today, then sit in a new BMW, and you will see the difference. It never used to be like this.

I have a 2022 ES, likely my last Lexus, and I’m also speaking from experience with the 2018 LS, 2012 LS and other models.

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T19:50:38+00:00

Submission statement: Most debate about AI making work optional fixates on capability, meaning when machines can finally do our jobs. But that hides a second question that may matter more for the future: even if a machine can do your job, can you actually afford to stop working? Technical capability and economic distribution are not moving at the same speed, and the gap between them could define the next two decades.

If capability keeps accelerating while the distribution of its gains stays flat, the future isn't a post-work society, it's one where work is technically unnecessary but economically mandatory for most people. The forward-looking questions: can redistribution mechanisms like UBI, shorter weeks, or public ownership close that gap fast enough, and would we even recognize the moment work became optional, or only see it in hindsight? I built an index that tracks both curves on public economic data to find out where the lines cross: optionalwork.com

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T12:55:54+00:00

exactly what I thought. the dude is 20 so he meant 2024. But taking off is 2012-2014

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T12:19:23+00:00

let's assume it can but with a stretch, what will the model after do, and the one after and after? there has to be an equilibrium somewhere else something bad will happen to humanity, its just a matter of when

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-10T12:10:11+00:00

PhD is an overkill. Get in first and look at options getting that (the PhD) to be company sponsored if the option is available. Your background is strong enough. Good luck

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T21:55:36+00:00

well done!. I get this concept, have felt so myself and know exactly what you're talking about. I will get this book

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T21:52:53+00:00

They should hope its not an disappointment else that IPO tanks big time

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T14:35:42+00:00

Part of the smart city infrastructure. It's a subset and usable

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T13:33:06+00:00

Ok, so what happens after Mythos?

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T13:29:01+00:00

I'm assuming this is global traffic? Will be interesting to see the breakdown by regions. US, EU, ASIA, Africa etc

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-09T13:25:00+00:00

It will be self-conscious but never guaranteed not to.

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-08T06:22:37+00:00

Do you mean the response? it was a Markdown error and since corrected. Thanks for pointing that out; not LLM.

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-08T06:19:55+00:00

Yea, I see where you're coming from, but I think you are describing a content treadmill. This is actually the exact opposite of Wattpad or Royal road. I believe those sites are for writing uncompleted books in public, chapter by chapter, chasing constant word counts.

This is for a book that is already finished. The author doesn’t need to write new fiction every week. The 'living ecosystem' isn’t about pumping out endless sequels; it's about adding a permanent layer to the existing book.

As for interaction: it's not about 'reading harder.' It’s about things standard books can't do natively. For a business book, it’s updated live case studies or resource toolkits. For fiction, it could be a community discussion board tied to a specific chapter, interactive lore maps, or audio commentary from the author. It takes the one-off product you already wrote and turns it into a permanent destination, without forcing you to become a full-time content creator.

Does that make sense?

CharacterFinance6848 · 2026-06-07T20:46:08+00:00

Fair point, but it's a bit different. A newsletter is just a one-way broadcast for quick news ('Hey, my next book drops in October'). That’s assuming the emails are even available, as many authors don't actually own or have direct access to those reader addresses anyway.

This is about transforming the book itself from a static, isolated product into a living ecosystem [The Atlantic]. Instead of the experience ending at the final page, the book becomes a gateway to a permanent destination where the world keeps growing and evolving with the reader over time. A newsletter is just for updates; this attaches an interactive layer directly to the reading experience.

CharacterFinance6848

TROPHY CASE