> But I have a growing sense that the core argument of The 4-Hour Workweek itself - the thesis that we should be creating loops of income-generating work that remove the human from the loop - is both obsolete and dangerous.
Because of AI?
... But isn't that exactly how people are trying to get massive amounts of code out of the LLMs now?
> VA work? AI does it for next to nothing, and better than a VA used to.
Only because most VAs are just bad. The "next to nothing" AI work is still bad; if you don't believe me, just allow Youtube to show you some ads some time. And doing it properly is not at all what I'd call passive income, more like gig work.
> There was nothing passive about the godfather of passive income at all.
… Ah, okay, that addresses my last point, I guess. :) But in that case,
> The goal is no longer 4 hours; it’s 40 hours of high-leverage work that produces 400 hours of impact.
it sounds like really not that much has changed after all. It's still a "work smarter, not harder" kind of idea, just with the belief that you'll still have to work relatively hard. Which is kind of grim, really.
zahlman•44m ago
Because of AI?
... But isn't that exactly how people are trying to get massive amounts of code out of the LLMs now?
> VA work? AI does it for next to nothing, and better than a VA used to.
Only because most VAs are just bad. The "next to nothing" AI work is still bad; if you don't believe me, just allow Youtube to show you some ads some time. And doing it properly is not at all what I'd call passive income, more like gig work.
> There was nothing passive about the godfather of passive income at all.
… Ah, okay, that addresses my last point, I guess. :) But in that case,
> The goal is no longer 4 hours; it’s 40 hours of high-leverage work that produces 400 hours of impact.
it sounds like really not that much has changed after all. It's still a "work smarter, not harder" kind of idea, just with the belief that you'll still have to work relatively hard. Which is kind of grim, really.