Live like you only have 10 years left

By Rafael Ruiz @ 2025-06-10T12:48 (+8)

I'm cross-posting this from my personal blog since it gained a bit of traction and discussion on Twitter, with people on both sides, vehemently agreeing or disagreeing with some of the key points. I thought it might be worth sharing with the wider EA community, so I'm making it a personal "Community" post. 

I'm a bit wary about posting this because I think it goes against some points of people from the CEA talk about avoiding burnout, but I hope it gets people to reflect on the issue on how we spend our time, given the potential existential risks coming our way.

Introduction.

Although I started writing this idea a while ago, this ended up being a sort-of indirect reply to Sarah’s defense of slowness at the end of the world. I also thought posting this would be perceived as rude or a personal attack towards my friends, family, or coworkers, so I’ve kept it sitting in my drafts for a few months, without knowing whether to post it or not. But, what the hell, here it is!

I find it pretty interesting to contrast our very opposite reactions to our style of living in the age of upcoming ultra-powerful Artificial Intelligence. For background details on the upcoming AI revolution, here is a positive summary of how the world might look like soon, here’s another, and here’s another. But AGI could also simply eradicate all life on Earth. One way or the other, it will likely be extremely transformative. This has led a bunch of different people to recently reflect on their career choices. For what it’s worth, here are my own beliefs on this “AI utopia or doom is coming in a decade” debate.

This is how the situation is looking. Is that good, or bad? Who knows

Let’s now look into how the Era of AI can affect our personal lives. In her essay, Sarah praises slowness, while, to simplify, I will praise going fast. She’s a friend, so I hope we can all take this as a friendly public conversation where we reflect and expand on our respective life philosophies. Her essay is short and worth reading in full, but here’s a hand-picked summary:

Since learning of the coming AI revolution, I’ve lived in two worlds. One moves at a leisurely pace, the same way it has all my life. (…) The second moves exponentially faster. Its shelf-life is measured in a single-digit number of years. Its inhabitants are the Situationally Aware; the engineers and prophets of imminent AI transformation.

I find that it’s psychologically untenable to spend all that much time in the Fast World. I can handle it for minutes to hours, but my mind invariably snaps back into its default state like I’m pulling my hand out of ice water.

Occupying the Slow World is ultimately a form of denial. I can’t call it anything other than compartmentalisation, yet I actually advocate for it. Of course, those of us trying to move the needle on AI risk should work in the Fast World, but I claim that we shouldn’t live in it. I will try to make the case for why.

(…)

This attitude can colour the way you perceive the whole world. It can make everyone – teenagers on their way to school, business people on their rush-hour commute, joggers on a morning run – appear to you like swimmers battling hopelessly against a tsunami they cannot see, their labour fruitless, misguided and tragic. It can make you feel sorry for them.

In short, Sarah’s essay describes the coexistence of two life philosophies. One is the Slow World, the realm where life proceeds at the same measured pace we have known all our lives. The other is the Fast World, which is mainly characterized by the rapid innovations of our time, the timeframe of quickly developing AI, where the horizon of technological advancement is months, weeks, or days. So, she basically defends a perspective of maintaining a leisurely, traditional pace as psychologically sustainable and desirable in the face of the coming AI revolution.

She particularly defends “Fast Work, Slow Life” stance. Yet, since I would say that most people work slow, not fast, she’s arguing for something that isn’t the mainstream position either. So, I actually see four possibilities here, which I’ve put in a handy meme political compass format:

 

Sarah says that the Fast World can be psychologically overwhelming, and I can definitely relate to Sarah’s point, emotionally and psychologically speaking. Sometimes, I wish I had a time chamber where I could stop the flow of time and take a break. Where I could binge-watch Netflix, play videogames, or focus on getting fit.

But, ultimately, to me, it still feels like avoiding the issue. It seems like a form of compartmentalization or even denial, a retreat from the powerful forces that will quickly reshaping our world. Since time is fungible (setting burnout aside), it is cope, as the kids say. The wheels of the world just keep accelerating, so I ultimately see defending the Slow World as a form of denial and a refusal to “get on with the times”.

The Train of Technology keeps speeding up. How long will you be able to hold on?

Living Fast.

My commitment to a fast-paced life probably reflects a deeper worldview of ethics, politics, and even aesthetics about life in the future. First, I am driven by the belief in the transformative potential of technology. That, if things go well, we’ll have an abundant future in which material scarcity is overcome, diseases are eradicated, and human longevity is radically extended.

A Romcomi tweet giving me very relatable 2000s Internet Rationalist Utopian Vibes

On the other hand, if things go badly, we have little time to align AGI until it wipes out all life on Earth. Either way, it leads me to the conclusion that we have to hurry to steer the future in the correct direction. In a world where decisive technological shifts are imminent, waiting passively doesn’t seem like an option. The urgency of our era demands that we steer the trajectory of progress towards outcomes that are beneficial on a global and even cosmic scale. The stakes of this timeline are too high for conventional, measured approaches.

2020s Internet Rationalist Dystopian Vibes

Now, in contrast to Sarah, I don’t care much about things that I consider somewhat trivial. These include hanging out with friends at the pub, people getting married, or stuff like that. I don’t care so much about the little things in the Grand Scheme of Things. I care about the Big Things. They are big for a reason!

To me, these little moments are fine in moderation, but they are not what makes my life worth living. I often feel like most people are just following the script of social norms or conventions. I am too much of a philosophical high decoupler to find that exciting. Every wedding is the same as the last. I could live without them.

Now, I recognize that I am pretty weird in that I care about the Big Things (the “Big Questions” in philosophy, politics, morality, physics, biology, psychology, big historical trends, technology), and I care about them on a global or even cosmic scale. I recognize that I am in the very, very small minority, and that living fast might only be for such a minority of people like me. (Although that doesn't mean that the majority is justified in going “business as usual”, either. Maybe they should rethink their priorities!)

I believe the extension of this vision of going fast requires us to transcend the confines of our conventional, village-like mentalities that, while psychologically comforting, often ultimately breed our reactionary politics, tribalism, and inhibit global human progress. By contrast, I adhere to a city life that lines up with rapid change. I want to encourage innovation, sharp thinking, and a commitment to ideas that can benefit humanity on a cosmic scale. And, since we are such a small minority, I advocate for also living fast in order to multiply our personal impact on the world.

I think that we should aim to live a more exciting life than the village life. That we should have higher, greater goals in life. We might be living at the hinge of history, the decisive century that might mean either an abundant future or technological annihilation. If anyone has to live fast, it’s us. Retreating into a slower pace might result in missed opportunities with severe consequences in helping avert or mitigate existential risks. The cost of inaction or delay in the face of transformative technology can be far greater than the personal challenges of maintaining a high speed.

How to Live a Fast-Paced Life.

For the last few years, I have embraced a series of habits that align with this fast-paced ideology and lifestyle, out of a mix of productivity advice, and also as a way reconciling big life goals of “influencing the trajectory of the world, even if just a little” with fitting some free time in a packed schedule. So, I aim to embrace many deliberate strategies to engage with and influence a rapidly transforming world. For instance:

The Challenges of the Fast-World.

Adopting a fast-paced lifestyle is not without its substantial costs. Here are some costs that I’ve noticed and that will become more common over time, as more and more people adopt the Fast World mentality.

Anyways, that’s about it. These challenges are not insurmountable, I believe. I hope they serve as reminders that, even as we harness the benefits of the Fast World, we must also cultivate personalities that are compatible with it, and adopt strategies to navigate the costs and benefits. The goal, to me, is not to reject this fast pace of life, but to adopt forms of being that are compatible with it. The Fast World is psychologically demanding, but it is the world of the future.

Conclusion.

I believe that living in the Fast World is the future, especially if you’re ambitious. Most people are not ready to hear that, and I believe we will see a lot more explicit political resistance in the future against such an all-encompassing future that is only compatible with a few people. Though, by then, it might be too late. For better or worse, the speed of the Fast World might crush their resistance.

You can’t hide from the Fast World. Eventually, this world will find you. And if you’re not prepared, it will crush you. So prepare ahead, prepare now. Improvise, Adapt, Overcome.

Further Readings:

The Game Board has been Flipped: Now is a good time to rethink what you’re doing by LintzA on the EA Forum

How Do I Plan My Life in a World with Rapid AI Development? by Oliver Kuperman on the EA Forum

Preparing Effective Altruism for an AI-Transformed World by Tobias Haberli on the EA Forum

Consider working more hours and taking more stimulants by Arjun Panickssery on his Substack

EDIT: Bonus. Exchange with Sarah on Twitter.

Sarah and I had an exchange on Twitter about the topic. I think it led to some good back-and-forth, so I reproduce it here.


Ande T. @ 2025-06-11T11:47 (+11)

Now this is an exciting topic, and I'm glad you've decided to share this with the EA forum.

I really agree with the core idea of living "like you only have 10 years left", which to me speaks about living with intention and some sort of "aware urgency" (where you're aware of the limited time you have in your life, and the general narrowing of choices as time goes by) rather than going with the flow. I honestly think more people should adopt this way of living. It's a good reminder to be intentional and to stop wasting time. 

But I do have to disagree with some points which, in my opinion, kind of do more harm to the argument rather than good.

The idea that accelerating your personal speed somehow translates to better outcomes is a rather bold assumption, because speed (or even optimization) isn’t the same as impact. There’s no real argument for why consuming more inputs or rejecting anything “slow” leads to better thinking, better judgment, or better decisions. In fact, the symptoms you described at some point in your article are the things that degrade decision quality.

The framing of the “fast world vs. slow world” creates a false binary. It works if you want to simplify some things for the sake of the argument, but you shouldn't do that if you base the rest of your ideas on it. Also, from personal experience, any serious attempt to engage with complex problems requires not just urgency, but stability. Because you do need feedback loops, error correction, reflection, and to be able to course-correct at any given time based on concrete information, because these problems usually don't have a one-and-done solution. I think speed-running through these kinds of situations will bring "tech debt" (or the mental equivalent of it) along with it.

I also think what you’re describing isn’t really speed, it’s just some degree of lack of prioritization. Because it describes reacting to urgency by cramming in more input, not by deciding what is actually a priority.

But I’m definitely with you on the need to treat time seriously.

OlyaBabe @ 2025-06-11T13:03 (+2)

Hi Rafael, thanks for the post!

I have a few thoughts to share, I will post them as separate comments to help structure discussion.

OlyaBabe @ 2025-06-11T13:07 (+3)

I think I am personally

Living like we only have 5 years left

(and I'd love others to embrace it). However, I am making choices that are different from your own, so I guess I put some of them here in the comments to highlight that being onboard with the principle will yield different results based one's preferences.

So here is me putting money where my mouth is[1]:

  • having kids
  • treating spending time with friends as last opportunity ever
    • this usually results in making effort to fly to meet them
    • offering to pay friends and family to visit me (symmetric with one above but less conventional)
  • getting driver's license with the expectation that it would only be meaningful to use for a few years not a lifetime
  • saying what I think and writing it down publicly, including writing these comments now
  • trying to be less risk-averse in general

I guess I also have an underlying intuition that we are about to enter the period of turmoil, so I am trying to take advantage of functioning infrastructure like commercial flights or mortgages while it lasts.

  1. ^

    and I guess putting mouth back there too?

OlyaBabe @ 2025-06-11T13:11 (+2)

Hamming questions

I hope you won't mind me asking you a few Hamming questions in the spirit of hyper-prioritization. (Feel free to ignore this, it feels like quite aggressive move for me ask, I'd be happy to chat 1:1 too.)

- Why becoming a public intellectual falls under "things that will greatly positively change the world or your personal life"? For you personally and for others.

- Why is it worth to try to be a polymath in 21st century?

Rafael Ruiz @ 2025-06-17T10:24 (+1)

To answer the two questions: For me as a philosopher, I think this is where I can have greatest impact, compared to writing technical stuff on very niche subjects, which might probably not matter much. Think how the majority of the impact that Peter Singer, Will MacAskill, Toby Ord, Richard Chappell, or Bentham's Bulldog have been a mix of new ideas and public advocacy for them. I could say similar thing about other types of intellectuals like Eliezer Yudkowsky, Nick Bostrom, or Anders Sandberg.

I think polymathy is also where the comparative advantage often lies for a philosopher. Particularly for me, I'm not so good at technical topics that I would greatly excel at a niche thing such as population ethics. I can, however, draw from other fields and learn how particular moral intuitions might be unreliable, for example. And what might feel like a advocating for a relatively small change in moral beliefs (e.g. what we do about insect suffering, or the potential suffering of digital minds) could change future societies greatly.

Yet I don't disregard specializing into one thing. I'm currently working on my PhD, which a very specialized project.

And I would give very different advice if I was working on AI safety directly. If that were the case, maybe digging deep into a topic to become a world expert or have a breakthrough might be the best way to go.

OlyaBabe @ 2025-06-11T13:12 (+1)

short timeline pill

I also found it hard to short-timeline-pill family and friends, and I try when asked about advice for the future but mostly so I feel I am being true to myself, not to convince anyone.
[1]

  1. ^

    It is quite impressive how avoidant people are of this topic, even when trying to philosophise about alternatives to capitalism or deciding what to do when faced with golden handcuffs when their startup gets acqui-hired.

OlyaBabe @ 2025-06-11T13:10 (+1)

Fast vs Slow


I find it interesting that you feel like promoting of the fast world mindset might be rude or cause a backlash because to me that feels like a mainstream view. A lot of advice on how to cope with AI is essentially equivalent to "you need to try harder", maybe with some qualifiers of what that might exactly look like.[1]

I'd say that I am hyper-prioretising Slow World because it is what makes life worth living. And if there is not much life left, it is even more important to have good experiences while it is possible?

I don’t care much about things that I consider somewhat trivial. These include hanging out with friends at the pub, people getting married, or stuff like that.

I care about the Big Things (the “Big Questions” in philosophy, politics, morality, physics, biology, psychology, big historical trends, technology), and I care about them on a global or even cosmic scale

I am curious, why do you care about Big Things without small things? Are Big Things not underpinned by values of small everyday things?

  1. ^

    That was my impression for example from "Planning a career in the age of A(G)I - w Luke Drago, Josh Landes & Ben Todd" event in April.

Rafael Ruiz @ 2025-06-17T10:33 (+1)

RE: "I am curious, why do you care about Big Things without small things? Are Big Things not underpinned by values of small everyday things?"

Perhaps it has to do with the level of ambition. Let's talk about a particular value to narrow down the discussion. Some people see "caring for all sentient beings" as an extension of empathy. Some others see it as a logical extension of a principle of impartiality or equality for all. I think I am more in this second camp. I don't care about invertebrate welfare, for example, because I am particularly empathetic towards them. Most people find bugs to be a bit icky, particularly under a magnifying glass, which turns off their empathy.

Rather, they are suffering sentient beings, which means that the same arguments for why we should care about people (and their wellbeing/interests/preferences) also apply to these invertebrates. And caring about, say, invertebrate welfare, requires a use of reason towards impartiality that might sometimes make you de-prioritize friends and family.

Secondly, I also have a big curiosity about understanding the universe, society, etc. which makes me feel like I'm wasting my time in social situations of friends and family when the conversation topics are a bit trivial.

As I repeat a bit throughout the post, I realize I might be a bit of an psychological outlier here, but I hope people can also see why this perspective might be appealing. Most people are compartimenalizing their views on AI existential risk to a level that I'm not sure makes sense.

SummaryBot @ 2025-06-10T19:49 (+2)

Executive summary: In this exploratory and personally reflective post, Rafael Ruiz advocates for a "Fast World" lifestyle—one of urgency, intense focus, and high information throughput—as a rational and ethical response to the potentially imminent transformative impacts of AI, countering Sarah’s call for a psychologically sustainable “Slow Life” and arguing that, while costly, living fast may be necessary for those aiming to shape the future.

Key points:

  1. Fast vs. Slow World philosophies: The post critiques Sarah’s defense of “Fast Work, Slow Life” as a psychologically sustainable way to respond to looming AI transformation. Rafael instead promotes living fully in the Fast World—prioritizing speed and high-impact action—as more aligned with the urgency of the moment.
  2. Ethical and strategic urgency: Rafael argues that if humanity is at a hinge point in history due to AI, individuals who recognize this should act accordingly—working faster, making sacrifices, and adopting practices that maximize personal impact in the limited time before transformative AI arrives.
  3. Lifestyle recommendations: He outlines strategies for living fast: hyper-prioritizing impactful tasks, consuming media at high speeds, avoiding fiction, and becoming a public intellectual—all framed as responses to a world accelerating toward either utopia or doom.
  4. Acknowledgement of psychological and social costs: The post candidly discusses drawbacks like anxiety, burnout, alienation from social norms, and a diminished capacity for “slow” pleasures, while suggesting occasional reprieves and strategic self-regulation.
  5. Normie critique and minority ethos: Rafael admits that his perspective may not be widely applicable, but suggests that most people should nonetheless re-evaluate their priorities. He views conventional lifestyles as insufficiently responsive to the stakes of the current era.
  6. Cultural and geographical implications: The post expresses ambivalence about moving to San Francisco—seen as the epicenter of the Fast World despite its dystopian feel—highlighting tensions between ambition and environment, and between European and Silicon Valley sensibilities.

 

 

This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.