Create value for others and don’t worry about the returns
A blog post urging people to “create value for others and not worry about returns” in the age of AI sparks debate over how realistic or ethical that stance is when many live paycheck to paycheck. Commenters weigh the idea of avoiding zero‑sum, rent‑seeking work against fears of automation, layoffs, and misaligned incentives in capitalism, questioning who actually captures the value workers create. The thread branches into arguments about UBI, the limits of stoic or Gita‑style non‑attachment to outcomes, and whether AI will truly reward value creation or simply empower larger rent seekers.
Scope of “Create Value, Don’t Worry About Returns”
- Many agree in principle: focusing on net-positive value and avoiding zero‑sum games is a good long‑term strategy and personal ethic.
- Critics argue this is only feasible if you already have financial/psychological slack; for most people, “returns” = rent, food, healthcare.
- Several note that workers can create large surplus value yet still be underpaid (care workers, FOSS maintainers, translators), so value ≠ reward.
- Some see the advice as a trap for engineers: if you don’t actively protect and negotiate for your share, others will capture it. Suggestions: unions, co‑ops, ownership.
Zero‑Sum vs Rent Seeking
- Distinction drawn between:
- Profit‑seeking via building useful products vs.
- Rent‑seeking via moats, lock‑in, lobbying (e.g., app‑store taxes, TurboTax, “enshittification”).
- Debate whether many social arenas (credentials, land, influence) are inherently zero‑sum or only locally/temporarily so.
- Concern that small rent‑seekers will lose to larger corporate rent‑seekers, especially in AI.
AI, Jobs, and “Recursive” Improvement
- Some think many “fake” or low‑value roles are being exposed; AI offers a justification to cut headcount that was already marginal.
- Others worry that genuinely productive workers are also at risk, especially in software, while essentials (food, housing, healthcare) aren’t getting cheaper.
- Anxiety about retraining mid‑career, especially with reduced learning capacity, debts, and mortgages.
- Mixed views on AI’s trajectory: from “recursive self‑improvement is inevitable once memory/harness solved” to “no free lunch; hard limits; hype used for layoffs and stock pumps.”
Philosophical Frames (Gita, Stoicism, Taoism)
- Some see the “don’t worry about returns” line as echoing non‑attachment: focus on effort/duty, not outcomes.
- Others argue that, in context, such ideas can justify caste, war, or “stay in your lane” obedience.
- Tension between:
- Letting go of outcome‑anxiety to perform better, and
- Owning outcomes to think deeply and avoid being exploited.
UBI and Safety Nets
- Several argue that a baseline like UBI (or at least an “adequate day job”) is prerequisite to freely creating value without chasing returns.
- Others claim UBI is economically naive: inflationary, administratively non‑trivial, and unfundable at generous levels; existing welfare already strains budgets.
- Counter‑arguments: UBI could simplify current redistribution, reduce perverse incentives, and unlock more genuinely useful or creative work.
Communities, Incentives, and Workplace Reality
- Joining the “right” communities/companies matters; toxic ones exploit value‑creators or quietly ostracize misfits.
- Multiple stories where resource allocation (e.g., travel reimbursement, mental‑health lip service) reveals true organizational priorities.
- Several note that management often misidentifies who creates value, and politics/fear can target strong contributors.